Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara Beckworth, a community activist in Dixon, California, and small business owner with a heart of service and a strong desire to help others. She has been involved in nearly every organization and club in the Dixon area and has served in many leadership roles.

Barbara's commitment and love for her community as a leader is reflected by her involvement in several committees and organizations. She was past Chair and Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she continues to moderate the candidate's forums, she sits on several scholarship committees for the students at Dixon High School, and she's also served as past president for the Dixon Chamber of Commerce and Dixon Downtown Business Association. Her desire to make Dixon a better place didn't stop there. She also is past president of Lambtown USA and is involved every year in the annual Dixon May Fair Parade.

Barbara is a true civic leader. There are many words to describe Barbara: graceful, elegant, beautiful, but most of all she is simply the nicest person one would ever meet. She was honored with the Dixon Citizen of the Year in 1989 and is considered an icon in Dixon who is loved by all who know her. Barbara is also known for her beloved dress shop that was in Downtown Dixon for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara (Babs) Cotter of Yuba City, California, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and possesses a deep desire to help others in the community.

Barbara Cotter, a retired educator dedicated her entire career doing what she loved best; making a difference in the lives of elementary school children. Her career spanned over a period of 38 years; 33 in the Yuba City Unified School District. As an elementary school teacher, she was inspiring, beloved, and revered by her students and fellow teachers alike.

In 1986, after surviving a life threatening medical diagnosis, she had an overwhelming desire to give back to a community that helped her through her recovery. She became a Reach to Recover coordinator, and eventually a board member for the American Cancer Society. Barbara's heart of service didn't stop there, she also volunteered for the Community Memorial Museum of Sutter County, the State Convention Planning Board for Philanthropic Educational Organization, Middle Mountain Foundation, and Girls on the Run.

In 2009, Barbara Cotter was honored with the Caroline S. Ringler Perpetual Service Award for outstanding service to the Museum and has been appointed to a lifetime position on the Museum Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Baljinder Dhillon of Yuba City, California, who has dedicated her life to education. She currently serves as the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools. Her career began as a fifth-grade teacher at Tierra Buena Elementary School in the Yuba City Unified School District. After earning her master's degree she moved into administration, serving as the assistant principal at Tierra Buena and Barry elementary schools. She later became the principal at Rio Del Oro Elementary in the Plumas Lake Elementary School District.

Dr. Dhillon is dedicated to finding ways to fund programs that benefit teachers, staff and students. She is credited with authorizing cost-saving measures for the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools office by becoming more energy efficient, she's authored proposals to fund the California Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Grant and

partnered with the four county offices for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence Early Adopter Grant application.

Dr. Dhillon received her Bachelor of Arts degree, Masters of Education degree in Education leadership and a Doctorate of Education from California State University, Sacramento. She was recognized by the California Superintendents Educational Services Association as Spotlight Leader for November 2016. Dr. Dhillon was also honored for her dedication and commitment by the Sikh Temple Gurdwara of Yuba City at their 37th Annual Nagar Kirtan Sikh Parade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Anna Eaton of Vacaville, CA, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and possesses a passion for serving our youth. Since 2013, Anna has distinguished herself as the Executive Director of the Vacaville Neighborhood Boys & Girls Club where she helps provide a safe and caring place for youth to learn and grow. During her tenure, she has expanded the program to five sites and significantly enhanced the club's focus on support and mentorship of the members as they are prepared for future life success.

Ms. Eaton was also founder of Starbound Theatre, a recreation based youth program, helping to bring the joyful experience of theatre to the at-risk and diverse youth of Fairfield, Vacaville, American Canyon, Dixon, and Napa. Ms. Eaton also serves in shaping strategic groups within Vacaville Unified School District to address future programs and curriculum, as well as be the catalyst for three youth summits for teens in the Will C. Wood Interact Club. Anna also serves on the Board of Directors for the Vacaville Rotary Club as the Youth Services Director and advisor to the Will C. Wood High School Interact Club.

Anna was born in Vietnam and came to America as a young child with her family as they escaped from Saigon as the United States Forces withdrew. She is a proud mother of four and proud American who dedicates her life to giving back to the country that has afforded her so many opportunities. ``Life is more meaningful when we evolve into a purpose greater than ourselves.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Barbara Graham of Vacaville, California, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and boundless giving of herself to the betterment of others. A woman of great faith, Barbara has been a pillar of the Vacaville community for many years. In the late 80's, she with husband and co-pastor, Willie Graham, founded the Christian Body Life Church in Vacaville where she serves and has served as Sunday School Teacher, Preacher, Choir member, Head of the Women's Department, and servant to any needy family of the congregation.

In 1999, Mrs. Graham answered the call to assist the Vacaville Police Department in establishing resource for victims of domestic violence. This program provides food, clothing, counseling, and many other free referral services in collaboration with city and county services. Since 2013, Barbara has also served as the Chapel Coordinator for David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base where she oversees hospitality and all aspects of daily operation and church services.

Barbara is a Board Member of Safe Quest Solano, a domestic violence shelter for women and their children, and was also integral to establishing the Supervised Visiting Care Program in collaboration with the Solano County Courts to provide safe spaces for troubled families to have visitations and promote positive joint custody child exchanges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Becky Marigo of Davis, California, who is committed to serving her community and has a clear passion for helping those who are truly in need. Through her work as a program supervisor and case manager at Davis Community Meals and Housing, Ms. Marigo helps homeless individuals find permanent housing. She coordinates with government agencies, private businesses, and charitable organizations in order to provide resources and opportunities to homeless individuals in her community. Her work has helped many individuals to move beyond homelessness and find work providing for themselves.

In Ms. Marigo's work with Davis Community Meals and Housing, she not only addresses the need of a whole community, she also works to ensure that she meets the needs of the individual. With every person she serves,

Ms. Marigo treats them with dignity, compassion, and respect. She has a talent for connecting with isolated individuals and helping them find comfort in their community. Once Ms. Marigo makes a connection with someone, she sees them through to success, ensuring that they have support every step of the way. Ms. Marigo's work helping those in need is a great inspiration and exemplifies what it means to serve your community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Albert O. Orta for his selfless service to our nation.

Albert Orta's extensive career began in 1947 after completion of his entry level training at Lackland Air Force Base as a member of the United States Air Force. There, he tracked and noted weather cycles. Soon thereafter, he was promoted to work on the base's radar and communication equipment as an electronics technician.

After his service with the United States Air Force, Mr. Orta continued to serve his country as an engineer with the United States Department of Defense at Lackland Air Force Base. His talents for engineering were well recognized and his responsibilities increased. Early in his career, he found himself traveling to well over fifty countries briefing Commanding Generals and U.S Embassy Ambassadors on communicative data and command post installation projects on behalf of the United States Military. His missions took him to Europe, the Philippines, Indo-China and to countries in Africa and South America, just to name a few.

Mr. Orta also worked on military aircraft as a radar engineer and found himself assisting on the improvements and installation of radar systems in the early B series military aircraft: B29, B36, B47 and B52. Mr. Orta's work was so noted as a leader and accomplished engineer that he was assigned to equipping and testing radar systems in the early F series military aircraft: F84, F86A, F89, F102 and F106. His proud accomplishment was his role as the lead engineer in the development and installation of new radar technology for the United States Air Force's F102 Delta Dagger, a $6 million project at the time of his assignment.

Mr. Orta's outstanding accomplishments and his willingness to serve our nation faithfully and to the best of his abilities in all positions was recognized by President Jimmy Carter and a host of Generals and Ambassadors acknowledging his incredible service to our nation through his work with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Albert Orta and Mary Louise Guerrero married in June of 1949 and are blessed with 12 children, 31 grandchildren, and 29 great-grandchildren. Throughout his career and travels he recognized that sharing stories of his travels were important life lessons. There is no greater devotion of a father who returned home from a mission to share the experiences he encountered of a different life, different culture and hardships to emphasize the importance of hard work, the importance of quality education, to learn to be resilient and to appreciate the freedoms we enjoy today. He stands proud that his children and grandchildren are successful in their own professional careers; some educators, leaders in the private industries, medical field, financial advisors, some with a heart for public service and some who proudly served our country in the military.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring Albert O. Orta for his distinguished career and his proud service to our country; and to Mary Louise Orta for her service in standing alongside her husband, supporting him and their family throughout his missions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brynda Stranix of Yuba City, California, a pillar of the community who exemplifies the qualities of a true public servant. She is a proven leader who embodies a passion to help others. Brynda currently serves as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation.

Brynda's passion to help the community thrive is reflected in her present and previous work experience in the field of economics. She joined the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation (YSEDC) in 2001 with 22 years of experience in administrative management, accounting and public relations. Since joining YSEDC, Brynda has worked tirelessly with local businesses as well as public and private community leaders to identify ways to improve and expand business in the area.

Brynda takes great pride in her community; she currently serves in eleven officer roles on boards and commissions for economic development, and is a member of twenty-nine various advisory committees who deal with critical issues from healthcare to homelessness and women's issues. When Brynda is not busy attending a meeting, you will always find her attending a community event.

Brynda was presented with the 2016 Athena Leadership Award for achieving the highest level of professional excellence for her contributions in improving the quality of life for others, especially women, in realizing their full potential. Brynda was born and raised in Yuba City and takes pride in raising three delightful grandsons.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Amanda Walsh of Davis, California, who embodies the values of a great teacher, educator, and mentor, and displays unparalleled dedication to her work. For Ms. Walsh, teaching is not just a job, but a calling. As an educator at Pioneer Elementary school, she has a positive and lasting impact on the children she teaches every day. Ms. Walsh is dedicated to the overall wellbeing of all students, ensuring that they are safe, fed, and taken care of. She can frequently be found working late to keep parents up to date and involved in their children's education.

Beyond her work in the classroom, Ms. Walsh finds many ways to serve her community. Over the years, she has been actively involved with the Parent Teacher Association and coordinated fundraising efforts for local schools. Ms. Walsh has volunteered her time for the Davis Little League and Davis Legacy Soccer Club.

A mother of three boys, Amanda is always busy, staying involved in her sons' education, music, and sports activities. Between her roles as a mother and a teacher, Amanda is dedicated to the wellbeing and success of children.

Mr. Speaker, an interesting week out ahead. As we begin this week, as we look at the budget for the United States of America, as we look and prepare to deal with the tax cut issue, we really ought to start that discussion with a clear understanding of what our goal is.

I often use this when I talk here on the floor because it is foundational. It is foundational to what I believe we should use to test the various pieces of legislation that come before us. This

would certainly be applicable as we look at the question of the Republican budget, which will be on the floor in the next couple of days, perhaps as early as tomorrow, and, of course, the tax cuts beyond.

Here it is. This is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt--FDR. This is actually etched into the marble at the memorial for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I came across it one day, and I think it is a very good criteria to judge.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

Using this as the criteria to judge the Republican budget and the upcoming tax reform or tax cuts, we would have to judge both as a miserable failure. We are looking at a situation in which somewhere between $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion of revenue will be removed from the Federal Government. That is about somewhere between $250 billion a year to $500 billion of revenue.

It doesn't mean a thing until you translate that into real programs. Keep in mind that to reduce the revenue of the Federal Government somewhere around $500 billion a year, you would have to remove 80 percent of the total money spent by the Department of Defense in all of the wars and all of the programs that they do in order to make up for that lost revenue.

Alternatively, you would have to reduce almost all of the other discretionary funding. No, we wouldn't build a wall. In fact, we would have to fire all of the immigration authorities. The TSA would no longer be in our airports. There would no longer be any educational programs. There would be no programs dealing with all of the Coast Guard. There would be no programs for the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation.

$500 billion of reduced revenue is possible as a result of both the budget, as well as the tax proposals that are coming before the House and the Senate in the days ahead. It may be just half that so we don't have to reduce all of those programs.

This is a monumental, critical issue upon which, if we were to use this as the criteria to judge it, we would say: Wait a minute. What about national defense?

Or we would say: Wait a minute. What about all of those programs that are necessary for our children, like the School Lunch Program?

It is critical that we analyze this carefully.

What does it do for the wealthy?

Well, let's take a look at that.

Now, given that the proposals are not yet defined down to the line and the text--but we do know from a general outline of our Speaker's previous proposals when he ran the budget here in the House and when he was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; and we have also President Trump's proposal--if it is the Ryan-McConnell-Trump proposal--it is the billionaires-first tax plan. It cuts the taxes for th wealthy. Eighty percent of the $2\1/2\ trillion to $5 trillion reduction winds up in the hands of the top 1 percent of Americans. Incredible.

At the same time, what does it do for the rest of the public?

Well, if you take a look at the detail in the budget that did pass this House and will be up for a vote in the very near future, it reduces Medicare and Medicaid by as much as $2 trillion. So you have got a reduction in revenue to be made up by a $2 trillion cut in Medicaid and Medicare.

Who receives Medicaid?

Across the United States, it is the working poor, and 60 percent of the total Medicaid budget is for seniors in nursing homes.

So what we have here is a tax policy that cuts the taxes for the wealthiest of America's, the great 1 percent. They get 80 percent of the tax reductions. The rest of the public, 99 percent, will somehow share in the remaining 20 percent of reductions.

Sounds like a bad deal?

It certainly is, if you are to compare that against what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said should be our criteria for judging legislation.

Now, it will be argued that the middle class will receive a tax cut. Well, some, perhaps, but not many. The majority of the middle class will actually receive a tax increase.

How does that happen?

The elimination of the deductions, State and local taxes, and other gimmicks that they have in it. So a family of four making somewhere around $50,000 could see their tax bill increase by as much as 380 percent.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are we talking about here?

We are talking about a tax plan that does not even come close to meeting this criteria of judgment.

Does it do more for the wealthy?

Oh, yes. Oh, yes. We are talking about trillions of dollars of tax reductions for the corporations and the superwealthy.

And what does the rest of the country get for those who have little?

They get even less.

So what we have here, when you consider that they are proposing as much as a $2 trillion reduction in Medicare--we are talking about the healthcare system for seniors--and Medicaid--the healthcare system for, again, seniors in nursing homes--about 60 percent of that money goes to those seniors. The remaining 40 percent goes to the working poor and the poor.

That alone, together with this transfer of the tax reductions for the superwealthy, amount to the largest transfer of wealth ever in any legislation that has been proposed, and hopefully will not pass, but has been proposed in this House. It is even a greater transfer of wealth than we saw in the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Beware, America. Be wary. The hucksters are promising something that they are only going to deliver to the superwealthy and to American corporations.

One more point I would like to make here is that often you will hear the argument that cutting corporate taxes will somehow lead to more jobs and that the employees will receive more benefits. Well, it turns out that a cut in corporate tax rates actually comes back to the top 1 percent. They will receive about 34 percent of the tax reductions that go to corporations.

I have heard this argued by our Treasury Secretary, that if we are somehow to cut corporate tax rates, we will see the corporations investing in their workers.

Wow. Wouldn't that be great?

So we cut the corporate tax rate from some 35 percent down to 10 percent, or maybe 15 percent, as our President has suggested. All of those reduced taxes will flow to the corporation's bottom line after tax profits will increase, and, wow, they will create jobs, they will pay higher wages.

What are the facts? What are the facts here?

Well, first of all, most of it will not wind up in the pockets of the workers. It will wind up in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, of which 34 percent of that will be the top 1 percent. So, once again, if you look at the corporate tax reductions, it is going to wind up benefiting the wealthy, not the workers.

There is another fact out there. In the 1970s, American corporations would invest about 50 percent--maybe slightly more than 50 percent--in capital improvements, building new factories, expanding the work floor, expanding the workers, workers' wages, benefits, and research and development. It is right there.

If you take a look at the Fortune 500 in the 1970s, well over 50 percent was reinvested in American jobs, American workers, expanding the factory floor, expanding the business, expanding research and development, and growing the corporation.

A remarkable and extremely important thing happened beginning in the 1980s, at about the time of the Reagan tax cuts, and continuing on, and is in place today. That has shifted.

Today, American corporations do not invest in America, they don't invest in new capital, and they don't invest in R&D. Ninety percent of the after-tax profits in the Fortune 500--most of the Fortune 500, or many of them--wind up in stock buybacks and executive salaries or overseas, not in American jobs.

If you are wondering why the American middle class has seen a flat and actually declining share of the GDP, it is because American corporations have shifted from investing in American jobs, American planting equipment, research and development; and they have shifted into manipulating their stock

price by buying back their own stock, using the after-tax profits, some 90 percent of it, for executive salaries and for stock buyback.

If you have got 100 stocks out there and they are valued at $10 apiece, you buy back 50 percent of the stock, guess what. You have doubled the stock price. By creating more jobs? By creating more profit. By increasing wages? By R&D? No. By manipulating your stock price by buying back that stock.

Now, maybe there is somebody who would like to debate this point. Come on down. Let's debate it.

The reality is just as I said. It is laid out there.

Oh, there is another fact. One of America's largest corporations, the CEO said: Not to worry. You reduce my company's tax rate, and I will invest in our workers. I will invest in new plant and equipment.

Interesting. In the last 8 years, the tax rate for AT&T is about 8 percent--not 35 percent, not 20 percent, not 15 percent, but 8 percent--and yet during that period of time, AT&T laid off 80,000 workers.

So you are going to tell me lowering a major American corporation's tax rate is somehow going to lead to more employment, more jobs? Then tell me why AT&T, that has an effective tax rate of 8 percent over a 7- , 8-year period of time, laid off 80,000 people. So let's argue this point. Let's see what is going on here.

We have before the House of Representatives and the Senate a fundamental question: Are we going to transfer even more wealth to the superwealthy by reducing their taxes and pushing off to the working men and women of America, the middle class, a higher burden?

Along with that, we either increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion or $5 trillion, depending upon how this finalizes--that is the tax reduction; that is the lost revenue to the Federal Government--or are we going to make massive cuts?

I am telling you what our Republican colleagues are promising us. Massive tax cuts for the superwealthy. The top 1 percent will get 80 percent of the tax reduction benefits, the remaining 99 percent of Americans will have to figure out how to share the small remaining 20 percent.

The probability associated with those tax cuts, a significant reduction in programs that serve seniors--Medicaid, in nursing homes, the working poor, the Medicaid expansion program wiped out, Medicare reductions, all of these things--and quite possibly reductions in children's health programs, school programs, school lunch programs, environmental support programs, clean water programs, transportation programs, all the rest. So a tax cut for the wealthy is going to be a burden on American workers.

Once again, if it happens, it will be the largest transfer of wealth from the working men and women of America to the superwealthy, as if we already do not have income inequality in America. It can be calculated that the income inequality in America today is the greatest it has been in any country for the last 500 years, dating back to when Spain was ripping off the Western Hemisphere taking all the gold, all the silver, anything else they could find, and transferring it to the Spanish Government, to the King and the Queen and their favorite folks. Income inequality is real.

There are many, many pieces of this puzzle that we need to understand. One of them is the way in which certain States that have heavy burdens because they are urbanized States will be particularly impacted by the proposals that we have seen.

Joining me tonight is the Representative from one of those States, New Jersey.

Mr. Payne, would you like to comment on this extraordinary transfer once again that is in this piece of legislation, the way it harms your State and my State?

Mr. Payne, thank you so very much. You made a very, very important point, and it is one I know your State and Representatives from your State are very aware of, and we are in California.

You said that for New Jersey here, you pay $1 in taxes to the Federal Government and you get back 77 cents. It turns out that California is in the same situation. We pay $1. I think we get back somewhere around the same, 70 percent back from the Federal Government.

Similarly, the other States, upper Midwest, this area, Nebraska, Colorado, Minnesota, these States also wind up paying more. Then over here, Illinois and New York, Massachusetts, it looks like, and New Jersey down here, Connecticut, also, these States wind up paying more.

It turns out that the program proposed by the Republicans is to further harm these particular States by taking away--these are high cost States. They have big populations, and they have expenses that are associated with those large populations.

They, the Republicans, want to eliminate the State and local tax deduction, which, as you said, not only burdens the individuals, but it is going

to be seriously harming these particular States. Already, these States are paying more.

If they are successful, they, the Republicans, are successful in eliminating the State and local taxes, the tax burden on these particular States, the big States, is going to go up, and the benefit will continue to flow to the States with lower populations. And you can see that on this map, because the rest of the Nation is red, meaning they receive more money than they pay in taxes.

So this is a particular problem. I am not going to say this is the only problem because you raised the issue, also, of the top 1 percent getting 80 percent of the tax break, but this is a very interesting map that is really not understood by our colleagues here.

Down here in Alabama and Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and so forth, relatively low tax States, they are actually subsidized by the high tax States; and so the elimination of State and local taxes increases the taxes on the high cost States already, who are already paying more than they are getting back from the Federal Government, so their burden is further increased.

We have got a fight on our hands.

So we are ready.

Well, exactly so. This proposal that is going to be before the House very soon will simply make this inequality between the States even worse.

Now, in Texas, this horrible problem down here in Houston, terrible-- similarly, with Florida--there will be even greater money flowing to those States that have seen these natural disasters, and so this is probably going to get even more so. If they are successful in doing away with the State and local tax deduction, this will become even more onerous for people in my State.

Frankly, I cannot understand how my Republican colleagues from California could possibly support something that would substantially increase their constituents' taxes. So we will see.

It is an interesting map. I came across it not too long ago, and I think I will use it even more.

I appreciate and thank Mr. Payne for joining us tonight. I am going to keep putting this back up here.

What are we here for?

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.

I am going to toss another thing up here. Included in this Republican program is the elimination of the estate tax.

If you want the wealthy to get even wealthier, then you move forward with the proposal that would shift the tax burden to the working men and women and away from those who are superwealthy. It has been said in an article in The New York Times that our President, under these proposals that he has put forward together with Mr. Ryan and Senator McConnell, that he would receive a billion-dollar reduction in taxes.

We don't have his tax returns so it is hard to say that that is the case, but based upon past tax returns, it appears as though, yeah, one of the beneficiaries of all of this tax reduction is the President and his Cabinet. His Cabinet is made up of some of the wealthiest people in America, and they are not only going to receive a huge tax cut if it were to go forward and as proposed today, the 400 highest income taxpayers whose incomes average more than $300 million a year--and I think that is probably most of the Cabinet, and certainly the President has been in that if he is not there today--that range of income would get an average tax cut of at least $15 million. That is enough for a few rounds of golf.

There is another piece of this puzzle, and I want to put this one up here. We are going to hear a lot of discussion about the estate tax and how somehow the estate tax harms American families, particularly American farmers.

Now, I represent a very large agricultural district, and I said let's do some research and see across the broad breadth of America. Is it the American farmers that are harmed by the estate tax?

It turns out that, yeah, there are some American farmers that are going to have to pay estate tax. There are 50 of them. There are 50 American farm families that would now be burdened by the current estate tax. Thousands upon thousands, millions of small farmers out there that the estate tax will never even come close to touching. It is $5.6 million of estate value for one, the spouse--another 5,000--so you have got $11.2 million for the family. It turns out it affects, perhaps, 50 families across America. The estate tax itself really only affects 5,200 families.

When you hear all this talk about the death tax or the estate tax, as it is really called, ask the question: Who does that affect?

Well, it certainly affects at least the President, Mr. Speaker. It affects the President and many members of his Cabinet. I can think of four right off who would be burdened by having to pay the estate tax. It is about $20 billion a year that is involved here.

So you have got 2.7 million estates of which just two-tenths of 1 percent would actually be affected by the estate tax. So don't get all excited, America, about eliminating the death tax, unless you want to see the programs on which you depend: education, childcare, children school lunch programs--if you are worried about the border, you are worried about the Homeland Security agency and their ability to provide those men and women. So it is about $20 billion a year that would be eliminated from the Federal tax base if the estate tax were to disappear.

If you care at all about income inequality, then you better keep the estate tax. Eliminate the estate tax, then the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and we will see even greater income inequality in the years ahead. So we have got some very heavy lifting to do here over the next couple of weeks.

Before I come back and end this with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I would just say that the Democrats in this House and in the Senate really want to have tax reform. We want to reform the tax system. We know that the corporate tax rate of 35 percent is the highest in the world, or at least the industrialized world, and it does need to be reduced.

We also know that there are very few corporations that actually pay the 35 percent. They are clearly burdened by a higher tax rate. We want to lower that tax rate. We want to do it in a way that encourages investment in the United States; that we go back to those days in the 1970s and early 1980s, when American corporations actually invested in expanding their business in the United States; that they would invest in capital formation, in plant and equipment, and hiring workers and paying higher wages, and engaging in research and development. There are ways we can do this in corporate tax reform.

For example, we could provide a faster write-off depreciation for investment in American research and development, in American factories, in plant and equipment. We might even structure it in such a way that we would provide an immediate 1-year or 2-year write-off depreciation of capital equipment placed in American factories that was made in America. If you want to buy Chinese equipment for your factory, well, you are going to have to depreciate that over 15 years.

There are ways in which--some very simple ways in which we can encourage corporations to invest in America by modifying the depreciation schedules. If it is an American-made piece of equipment, a Caterpillar tractor that is

manufactured in America, write it off in 1 year.

You want to buy a Kubota manufactured in Japan?

Okay. You can write that off in 10 years.

In other words, a positive encouragement for American-made equipment is just one of many examples. As we bring down the corporate tax rate, we build into it very specific things to build the American economy. There are other things, and certainly the wages are part of this, R&D, and all of the other elements. We Democrats want to engage with our Republican colleagues in that kind of tax reform.

On the personal income tax side, yes, we are willing to talk about the tax rates, but we don't want to see the tax cut benefit go to the superwealthy that are already doing extraordinarily well. We want that benefit to go to the working men and women of America. We can expand their deductibles, and the Republicans are talking about that, but it is done in a limited way. And when you add back into it the elimination of State and local income tax and other things that they are talking about doing, it turns out that a very limited number of middle-income and low-income taxpayers are going to benefit, and many will find their taxes go up. We think that is wrong.

As we look at this on the personal income tax side, we want to make sure that we are able to structure those personal income tax changes in such a way as to simplify, absolutely, and eliminate a lot of scurrilous deductions that only benefit the rich and the wealthy, and come to a program that is simpler, more straightforward, and really benefits the great American middle class, or as the President likes to say, let's make the middle class great again. We can do that through tax policy. That is what we want to do.

I am telling you where we are headed today. We are headed today in a program in which our Republican colleagues are going to ignore our Democratic participation in this democracy, and they are going to ram through their own version of tax reform, which is simply a monumental tax decrease for American corporations, many of which are offshoring jobs. I can come back to that in a moment, and the high-income Americans as their taxes are reduced and their estate tax is eliminated. We think that is wrong, but they are not asking us how we can work together. They are not asking us to work with them.

They have structured it through the budget deal that they can do it with 51 votes in the Senate, totally ignoring the Democratic Senators, and here in the House of Representatives, following a tradition that has been underway for several years now of simply writing a tax bill on their own, writing a repeal on their own, and ignoring the Democrats who we believe have a better deal for Americans.

We believe that there is a better deal, that we can increase American pay by writing a corporate Tax Code that encourages investment in America, that encourages investment in workers, in worker training, worker preparation, and all the technical skills that a modern American economy needs. Yes, we do know there is a better way in writing the Tax Code. We also know that we can write a Tax Code that would lower the cost for those American corporations, businesses, and farmers who are investing in America. I have given some of those ideas already here a moment ago.

Finally, we know that there is a better deal for Americans when we provide the tools for the 21st century, and this has to do with those tools of training and retraining so that the American workers are prepared to take the jobs that are out there.

How do you repair that robot that has replaced you on the manufacturing floor? How do you repair it? How do you program it?

That is a skill set that Americans are going to need.

In my area, we have pharmaceutical companies that are technologically driven. Their laboratories need to be staffed by American workers who understand the intricacies of biology and the biotechnical industry, which is emerging in my district and in California. That is a skill set.

We know that there is a better deal for Americans. We know that there is a better way for tax reform. We know that there is a necessity in America to build the infrastructure, the foundation of economic growth. But we also know that if our Republican friends are successful in reducing Federal revenues by somewhere between $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion, this is their proposal, revenues reduced by that, we will not have money for training American workers. We will not have money for the infrastructure investments, which are necessary to repair our bridges, build our roads, our airports and the like so that we have a foundation upon which the economy will grow. We know that.

We have to persuade our Republican colleagues, so we are going to have to rely on the American people, just as we relied upon you when the repeal and replace legislation was before the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The American public said: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. This is a bad deal, not a better deal, but a bad deal for Americans.

So the tax reform or the tax cuts that are before us in the next weeks--the next 4 weeks--are a bad deal for Americans, and we are going to have to rely upon the American public becoming aware of what is going on here in Washington, and then speaking out and saying: No, no. Time out, folks. You are not going to screw us again. You are not going to do that again. We don't want the wealthy to get wealthier while we get poorer.

So the American public, I would expect, will say, ``No, no way,'' just as they did when the great repeal and replace legislation was before Congress just a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, I have covered the issue for the night, but I want us all to remember that the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is, rather, whether we provide enough for those who have too little. It is etched in the monument and the marble of the FDR Memorial, and it is a pretty good test of our progress here.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we need to talk about. Important events are spilling upon Americans, just cascading upon us. We could spend hours and, indeed, should spend hours talking about North Korea. We should and will spend hours talking about tax reform, or tax reductions, or serious benefits for the superwealthy in America, and we will talk about that. We will debate that.

But what is on my mind right now are the disasters that have befallen our American people. We think about what has happened over the last 11 months--floods on the East Coast, people forced out of their homes as the rivers rose in the Carolinas.

We think about California, and the massive floods, and the 200,000 people who were evacuated from their homes in my district.

We think about the recent hurricanes as they slammed into Houston, Florida, the Keys; and Hurricane Maria, as that hurricane devastated Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. These traumatic disasters are now in our memory, but they are also our reality.

In California today, in my district, and in my colleague Mike Thompson's district, thousands of homes have been burned to the ground and people have died.

These disasters are not new to America, and, over the years, we have set up a mechanism to deal with them. That mechanism is the firefighters across this Nation who respond, the emergency plans that have been put in place.

I know during my period as insurance commissioner in California, I would often arrive at these disasters, some of which go back more than 30 or 40 years, and console people who will have lost their home and attempt to deal with their insurance issues. And I would always remind those who were in the path of these flames, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, to be prepared; that Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

And now, in California, the same message goes out by the first responders and, indeed, by myself here on the floor of the House of Representatives: Be prepared. Be prepared to evacuate. Think about what it is you need to take ahead of time, those important papers, those scrapbooks, those photo albums, the dog, the cat; and when the time to go arrives, when that message arrives on your cell phone, or on the loud speaker from the police car out in front, obey it. Get out. Get out because you have already prepared.

Yes, you should have had that insurance policy that you forgot, that flood insurance program. Yes, you should have had it. And all too often, we have to rely upon the generosity of charities, and, thankfully, they are there. And we also rely upon the Federal, State and county governments.

Today, here in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate, as well as in the administration, we are beginning to gear up for yet another emergency appropriation to pay for the relief efforts that are underway. It is not going to be enough. It may take care of part of what occurred in Houston, or in Florida, or in the Keys. It is certainly not going to be enough to take care of the devastation in Puerto Rico.

And I know, as the fires continue to rage in California, the appropriations that are being discussed, the emergency money for FEMA, will not be enough.

While we are looking at these disasters and the billions upon billions of dollars that will be needed to rebuild the infrastructure, to rebuild the schools and hospitals, to pay the bills for the emergency work that is going on, this House of Representatives, this week, is in the process of trying to figure out how to pass a massive tax cut that will take trillions of dollars of revenue away from the Federal Government.

It is estimated anywhere from $2 trillion to $5 trillion, depending upon the details, over the next decade, will not be available for the next disaster.

Will it be added to the deficit? Possibly.

Will those revenue reductions be balanced by cuts to Medicare? Yes. It is already being discussed. It is in the Republican budget.

Will those $2 trillion to $5 trillion reductions in revenue be added to the deficit, or will we cut Medicare? They tried to do it in the Affordable Care Act, now they are coming back with a budget bill that would cause it to happen again--more than $1.5 trillion pulled out of the Medicaid program. And so there will be another disaster, a slow- building disaster of millions of Americans who will not be able to get healthcare.

So, added on top of the burden of rebuilding America, the emergency appropriations to pay for the ongoing and past disasters, we need to be aware of the inconsistency of thought that is going on here.

We are looking at an appropriation bill to pass something in the range of $15 billion, in addition to the previous $12 billion, which we know will not be sufficient to deal with the existing disasters; to say nothing of the billions of dollars that are owed to the counties and States for disasters going back, at least in California, 10 years, where the Federal Government has yet to reimburse the counties and State for the obligations that the Federal Government accepted, in some cases, a decade ago.

In the face of all of that, we are going to reduce revenues to the Federal Government.

Who gets the tax breaks?

Well, here is a fact that the Vice President--excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I might--has suggested in California: that it is the poor that will get the tax break.

Not so. They will get a little, to be sure. The middle class is likely to get a tax increase.

But the real tax break, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of those revenue reductions. Eighty percent will flow to the top 1 percent of America's wealthy. So if you are concerned about income inequality, you better be paying attention.

One must wonder: What is the logic of what is happening here? What is the logic?

In the face of disasters that have occurred, historically, but more recently within the last year--floods in California, floods in the Carolinas, hurricanes, fires, tornados in the Midwest--in the face of all of that, we are going to massively reduce the ability of the Federal Government to respond. It doesn't make much sense to me, particularly when the beneficiaries of those tax reductions are the superwealthy.

I think it is 2,500 families in America that would benefit from the elimination of the estate tax--2,000-plus families. It is some $6 billion to $9 billion of revenue lost every year so that 2,000 superwealthy families don't have to pay an estate tax.

What is going on here?

600,000 low-income housing vouchers gone so that they can pass on their wealth to the next generation. Income inequality.

In the face of the disasters, we need to stop for a moment as we begin the appropriations process for the FEMA emergency appropriations. We need to stop for a moment and consider the way these two things work together.

I was in my district, Davis, California, for an event on Sunday, and I had several students--some of whom are my interns--come to me and say: What are you going to do about the student loans? There is a lot of happy talk around here that we are going to make higher education free. It is a great idea.

It used to be that way when we were building the economy, when we knew, if we educated people, we would have a strong, growing economy. But tell me, in the face of a $2 trillion to $5 trillion reduction in the revenues to the Federal Government so that the wealthy can get wealthier, how are we going to ever reduce the cost of education to Americans?

I don't know. Maybe somebody has the answer here. It doesn't seem clear to me that that could be happening.

I am going to introduce a bill again this week--one that I introduced in the last session--that is kind of based upon the fact that Americans across this Nation are able to refinance their homes at a lower interest rate. It is a great idea. I have done it. I suspect many of the people who are listening, and certainly many of the Members of Congress, have refinanced their home to get a lower interest rate.

But if you have a student loan that may have been from 5 or 8 years ago, or you are about to sign a document this fall for a Federally financed student loan, you cannot refinance that.

Why?

The Federal Government--there is $1.3 trillion of student loans out there. Nearly $900 billion of that $1.3 trillion is owed to the Federal Government.

Why don't we refinance those loans? What if we were to do that? What would it mean to the students out there who are paying 5, 6, 7, 8 percent interest to the Federal Government that is able to go out and borrow money for 10 years at 2 percent?

That is a pretty good margin.

Even the fat cats on Wall Street can't have a margin that big, but the Federal Government does. So these students are paying these high interest rates so that the Federal Government can literally profit on their backs. That is a fact. Let's allow those students to refinance those student loans. Let's just see what happens.

The Federal Government can borrow money at less than right around 2 percent--maybe a little less right now; add a percent for management fees, 3 percent; reduce all of the student loans, $800 billion, $900 billion of student loans. The government would go out and borrow it at 2 percent for 10 years and tell the students and those who are no longer in school: We are going to allow you to refinance. Take an interest rate that may be half of what you are getting now.

By the way, why are we charging a fee to these students so that they could borrow money? Don't we want them to get an education? Don't we want them to be able to improve themselves?

Yet we require a fee. So let's eliminate the origination fees.

It is as though the Federal Government were some sharks out there dealing with home mortgages. No. We are dealing with students and their lives. If we can do this, maybe it is a couple of thousand dollars over the life of that loan that that student can then invest in their life and in their family.

These are things that are possible. These are things that we ought to be doing. There is just a lot of happy talk around here: Oh, we are going to make education free.

It would be good if we could. We could if we don't cut the Federal revenues by $2 trillion to $5 trillion over the next decade. Eliminate origination fees. Save low-income borrowing. It is all possible. The art of the possible ought to be what we are doing, not the art of enhancing those who are so wealthy already.

I am going to paraphrase a fellow that is pretty important in American history. FDR said something like this: The measure of our success is not that we do more for those who have much, but, rather, that we do for those who have little.

So what of this tax cut that we are going to spend this week and next week, this next month, and, according to our Treasury Secretary, we will be done by the end of the year? So what does it mean?

It means maybe a small tax break for the working men and women of America. It means a huge tax benefit for those who are already wealthy; the elimination of the estate tax.

It has been estimated by The New York Times that based upon our President's tax returns of a decade ago--by the way, he won't show us his present tax returns--that he could benefit to the tune of $1 billion with his proposed tax program.

Not bad if you can have it. But is that good public policy?

I don't think so. I don't think so; not in the face of the needs of America. We have enormous defense needs. We have been fighting wars in the Middle East for almost three decades now. There are other needs that we have for our military.

You only need to listen to the Secretary of Defense and others as they talk about the need to rebuild much of the American military. The admiral responsible for the Pacific Theater says that he needs something rather important: munitions.

Munitions. Wow.

Yes, we have needs. We have students who are paying interest rates far higher than is necessary, unable to refinance their Federal student loans because the law doesn't allow it. But it is possible. In fact, it would make a lot of economic sense. These young men and women might actually start a family; might actually be able to buy a home or a car, start a new business, start a small business. There are a lot of possibilities.

But the superwealthy need another tax break?

I don't think so. I don't think so at all. And I don't quite understand the happy talk by our leaders of this administration who like to say: Not to worry. You are going to get to deduct the first $25,000.

Well, yes. And then what?

Oh, by the way, there is this 20 percent increase in the bottom tax rate, from 10 percent to 12 percent. That is a 20 percent increase. At the top tax rate, it goes from 35, unless you are able to maneuver into their little scheme where you can actually reduce your tax rate to 15 percent by being an LLC--a limited liability corporation--or a subchapter S corporation.

Well, if you have the money to hire a good accountant and a lawyer, there are a lot of ways you can scheme and scam. And if you are a corporation, some of our largest corporations are able to hire the lawyers and the accountants and duck their taxes entirely.

The list is long. The list is actually rather maddening. Apple, GE, AT&T, and others, the big ones, their tax rates are down in the zero or in the less than 10 percent range, and they want more.

So Puerto Rico is devastated. My counties in California are facing rampaging fires, and perhaps as many as 2,000 homes have already burned. There will be another tornado and another hurricane.

The question for us is: Will there be the money for the Federal Government to provide the support that we should do to help Americans rebuild?

That is a fundamental question.

I know that there is a better way. I know that in the proposal that our Republicans have put forth there will be less money for infrastructure. I know that if you want good-paying jobs, the construction industry has good-paying jobs. I know that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, the economy will grow by $2 or more and have a foundation for future economic growth.

I know that when we rebuild the infrastructure of our communities that have been devastated by hurricanes, tornados, floods, and fires, that the communities can come back strong and the economies for those communities can flourish. I know that it takes a strong American Government to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this week, my heart and thoughts go out to those millions of Americans who have been devastated by the hurricanes, floods, and fires; those people in my district who have lost their homes, and those who have lost their lives.

I come here to the floor to say: Let us think seriously about what our obligation is to Americans, to those who have little, to those who have lost everything. What is our obligation to them?

FDR was correct: The measure of our success is not that we do more for those who have much, but, rather, that we do for those who have little.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things on the minds of Americans: three hurricanes in a month, disasters in Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. We just heard our colleague from the Virgin Islands speak of the problems that that island has. Millions of Americans harmed in so many ways, lives lost, just yesterday, the tragedy in Las Vegas.

It is hard not to focus only on those issues, but in many, many ways, Las

Vegas aside, the issue of the hurricanes and what we will do as Americans going forward is on my mind and, I suspect, on the minds of many.

As we review and as we figure out how to deal with those disasters and how we rebuild, I would like us all to keep in mind that our goal, in addition to bringing these economies back together again, putting people back in their homes, their businesses, and the infrastructure, that we keep in mind that we ought to be looking for better jobs and better wages for all Americans--and certainly for those in the low- and middle-income brackets--and a better future.

We think about Puerto Rico and their future. How do we make it a better future? Well, we certainly know that there is a problem in much of America, stagnation of wages, so higher pay becomes critically important.

We need to deal with the cost issues that go into this, and we need to make sure that all Americans, wherever they may be, in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Washington, Virginia, wherever, that they have the tools to compete.

So today we are going to take 1 hour, and we are going to talk about ideas that need to be discussed here in the House of Representatives: legislation, existing programs such as the Jones Act, shipbuilding, and the like.

I would like to ask my colleague, Brendan Boyle, to begin the discussion with a bill that he and his colleagues, or our colleagues, are introducing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for his thoughts. I started off with a better deal, better wages, better jobs, or jobs at all. The Make It In America agenda, which we have been talking about here for 5 or 6 years, long before President Trump came along, involves tax policy. I am bringing to our attention tonight a tax issue that will create jobs in America and, frankly, no longer promote the offshoring of jobs.

Another piece of our puzzle on making it in America, and better wages, better jobs, and better future, is something that has been much discussed in recent days, particularly with regard to the Puerto Rican situation, and that is the Jones Act.

Joining me tonight to discuss the Jones Act, why it is important to America, why it is a major job opportunity and continuation for American mariners, American shipowners, as well as America's shipyards, is Ms. Jayapal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the State of Washington for very clearly laying out why the Jones Act is good for all of us.

We held a hearing today, an extensive hearing on the maritime industry and on the Jones Act in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, and it was laid out with facts and figures, many of those behind you on the chart. There has been a lot of talk about the Jones Act somehow harming Puerto Rico. The fact is, the truth is exactly the opposite.

The Jones Act allows for three American shipping companies using American ships with American mariners to deliver twice a week--each of those companies--twice a week on what amounts to a milk run from Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico, all the goods and services that they need.

With the hurricane having happened, these three companies are providing all of the FEMA, all of the emergency aid, and they have additional capacity that has not yet been used in delivering the goods and services that Puerto Rico needs in the wake of the hurricane.

In addition to that, the Jones Act is not just between the islands of Puerto Rico, Guam, or Hawaii. It is the inland waterways of America-- the great Mississippi River system, all of the barges and tugs and the rest. If the Jones Act didn't exist, we would have companies, mariners, and sailors operating in the heart of our country from everywhere in the world. This is a major national security issue beyond what we will talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) so very much for participating in this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) to carry on with these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for bringing to our attention the role of the unions in maintaining wages throughout the United States. If we are looking for a better deal, better jobs, better wages, and a better future, certainly the union members in the maritime industry will--and have been able to--achieve that.

The great risk is legislation may be moving through the Senate and the House that would terminate the Jones Act and, along with it, some 400,000 jobs in the United States, 100,000 of those directly in the shipyards that are building these American-built ships for the intercoastal and for the brown water, the river transportation, as well as the open ocean transportation.

So we have got something here that is very important, and that is Make It In America, a better deal for Americans comes through the Jones Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my colleague from Chicago, Ms. Schakowsky, is here once again to pick up on something we talked about earlier in our Make It In America agenda. If she would look here, number two on the Make It In America agenda is taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to talk about taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is properly dressed for the Blue Collar Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me for a moment, forgive me for interrupting, but the gentlewoman said something that caught my attention.

American corporations that build a factory in China are able to deduct that cost of that factory against their American taxes?

Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so very much for bringing the voice of Chicago to the floor on a very good piece of legislation. I believe that has already gone across the desk, and I didn't get a chance to sign on to it before the gentlewoman put it across the desk, but I will forgive the gentlewoman for that.

As a proud member of the Blue Collar Caucus, I thank the gentlewoman for both wearing blue and bringing a message from that caucus. It is extremely important.

The Make It In America agenda, which we have been talking about here for at least the last 8 or 9 years, has all of these pieces. The gentlewoman talked about trade, taxes, infrastructure, education, and labor--all the pieces of this puzzle.

As we discussed today, there are programs that are clearly going to be at risk. If the Jones Act somehow gets repealed or gets waived or otherwise is made less effective, then there are some 400,000 jobs in American shipyards across the Nation that will be lost. These are shipyards in Philadelphia, the Gulf Coast, and out in the West, as we heard Ms. Jayapal talk about Seattle.

San Diego has a major shipyard, the NASSCO shipyard. These are places where the Jones Act allows for American ships to be built not in China, but, rather, in America. Make It In America. The Jones Act does that.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you a couple of examples. One of the companies that ships goods from Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico is the TOTE shipping company. They recently spent nearly $400 million on two of the most advanced clean energy ships anywhere in the world.

These ships were built in San Diego. They are LNG-powered, natural gas-powered ships, and they are now plying the Jacksonville-Puerto Rico trade twice a week, back and forth.

Crowley is another company operating in that same area, again, twice a week, back and forth. They, too, will soon have LNG-powered ships operating in that area--ships built in America with American workers and American steel, American engines, and the rest.

So this is critically important. There are 100,000 jobs in the shipyards. If we repeal the Jones Act, they are gone and, along with it, the ability of the American shipbuilding industry to supply commercial ships to move critical national security men and equipment wherever it needs to go in the world.

The U.S. military is dependent on the American merchant marine system to move 90 percent of the personnel, equipment, supplies, tanks, artillery, and all the rest around the world. We have huge airplanes. They are essential. We see those operating in Puerto Rico now. But they are not supplying the great mass of goods and services that are needed.

So the plea from all of us who understand what the Jones Act is really about is to say don't do away with this critical piece of America's infrastructure.

At the hearing today, I heard my Republican colleague, Mr. Hunter, chairman of the committee, quote the great free market idol, Adam Smith.

All too often, the free marketers of the world read those paragraphs that serve their purposes, but if they were to read the next few paragraphs in Adam Smith's work, ``The Wealth of Nations,'' they would read that Adam Smith said very clearly at the period of time he was writing that it was absolutely essential for the British Government to protect the British merchant marine and the British maritime industry.

That same admonition should come to the American Congress the same way: protect this vital industry, protect the merchant marines.

We do not want and we cannot have foreign ships, foreign tugboats, foreign barges operating up and down the Mississippi River.

What are they carrying? They are carrying gasoline, diesel oil, natural gas, volatile substances. They are carrying cement. They are carrying grain.

Do you want to have Yemeni sailors on the Mississippi? Do you want to have ships owned by China, tugboats, barges owned by China on the Mississippi River?

If that is what you want, then do away the Jones Act, because that is exactly what would happen. If you want good American wages with good American mariners operating on the inland waterways through the Gulf Coast and up the East Coast, if that is what you want, then you better keep the Jones Act.

If you do away with the Jones Act, it is guaranteed we will have the elimination of the American maritime industry.

If you want American ships operating on the West Coast from Seattle to Anchorage, then you better keep the Jones Act, similarly with Hawaii and Guam.

Most of all, do you want to have the United States military phone China and say: We need to ship a few things to the South China Sea to deal with your encroachment on the islands in the South China Sea; gee, Mr. China, would you please send us some ships so that we can put the military equipment on those ships? Is that what we want?

For those men and women here in this Congress and the Senate that want to do away with the Jones Act, think about it. If you do away with the Jones Act, you do away with the American merchant marine. Then this country relies upon China, the largest ship-owning nation in the world, or maybe sailors from wherever. What background would they have?

So let's pay attention here. Adam Smith said to the British Government: Maintain the cabotage laws. Do not allow the maritime industry for Great Britain to go away.

So we should be paying attention to the master of the free market system, who wasn't totally for the free market but understood the necessity of protecting certain industries that are critical to the future of a country.

One more thing is on my mind. Two years ago, the Congress of the United States decided that we ought to, for the first time in some 50 years, export our crude oil. We have been exporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas for some time. We added to that the export of oil.

Is that strategic national asset on American ships with American sailors? The answer is no. But if we passed a couple of paragraphs of law and required, as we once did with the North Slope oil when that opened up in the sixties, that that oil be transported on American- built ships with American sailors, if we were to reinstitute that law for just a small percentage of the strategic national asset, crude oil and natural gas, just a small percentage of that on American-built ships with American sailors, we could build ships in America. Not just a few ships, but over the course of the next 20 or 30 years, 50 or 60 ships, providing thousands upon thousands of jobs in our American shipyards.

Right now, where are those ships built? China, Japan, and Korea, but not in America. We ought to pay attention to the 1960 law that opened up the North Slope of Alaska that required that oil from Alaska be on American-built ships with American sailors. That

lasted for almost 40 years. Then slowly, slowly it was set aside. Now that oil is on ships that are built in China, Korea, and Japan.

If we want good-paying jobs in America, if we want a better future, if we want better jobs, if we want an opportunity for Americans to earn a good middle class wage in the shipyards on the ships, then maintain the Jones Act and think seriously about a law that would create even more jobs in American shipyards.

We will soon be introducing a bill called the Energizing American Maritime Act. Using a strategic national asset that we are now able to export, natural gas and oil, we require that a small percentage of that--not 50 percent, not 70 percent, not even 40 percent, but maybe 20 percent--be on American ships with American sailors.

There are many, many things we can do to create good-paying jobs in America. The Jones Act is one such law that has been in place for nearly a century. It served America well and will continue to serve America well if we maintain it and if we don't allow waivers that simply blow holes in that law, and if we take a strong Make It In America agenda. The President likes to talk about it, but talk is cheap. Legislation makes that talk real.

Trade policy, taxes: We just heard about the patriot tax encouraging American businesses with real tax incentives and discouraging American businesses that want to offshore the jobs.

Energy policy: I think I just talked about energy policy a moment ago. Put that oil and natural gas on American ships.

Labor: Good-paying jobs in the shipyards, good-paying jobs on the ships.

Education: The maritime academies provide the education that is necessary to do that.

Infrastructure: Freight movement, the ports, channels deepening, maintaining the locks on the Mississippi and the Ohio. Infrastructure, again, good-paying jobs.

We can do a lot. It takes laws and it takes men and women on the Democratic side and the Republican side that come together and say: We can do this. We can do this for America and for America's workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues in the House of Representatives, most of whom are not here right now but perhaps they are back in their office listening, and really to the American public and folks here in the Chamber, it has been a most interesting week-- well, actually, the last 3 weeks.

The United States has been hit with three major hurricanes. In Houston, they say was a 500-year storm. The Florida Keys, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, disasters beyond, in many cases, human understanding. We have never seen 50 inches of rain in a matter of days.

We have seen storms in the Caribbean that have been vicious. I don't believe we have ever seen one that completely wiped out an island, leaving 3.5 million people without water and power, islands in the Florida Keys flattened, and floods throughout most of Florida.

These are natural disasters.

We look to our neighbors in the south, and we see Mexico City, that great capital, once again, lay bare with an earthquake. Further south and west of that, another community. Yet, just yesterday and the day before, another earthquake.

These are natural disasters.

As Members of Congress representing 350-plus million Americans, we have an obligation. You heard a couple of our colleagues speak to this.

I went to bed last night with visions and pictures of Puerto Rico on the television screen. I woke up this morning,

turned the television on, and it was all about the President calling a couple of athletes a name that I should not repeat on the floor.

What is going on here? How could it be that, 2 days after the devastation of Puerto Rico, our President would decide that the appropriate thing for him to do is to call out African-American athletes who are protesting the death of African Americans at the hands of police?

All of that was followed in just a few moments by experts who were saying that we are closer to nuclear war today than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the sixties.

What in the world is going on here? What is happening? Why are we in this situation? Why is it that we are not debating here on the floor of the House how to provide relief to Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands--our own citizens?

Is there a debate going on in the House of Representatives in any hearing? No, there isn't.

Is there a debate on the floor about the necessity to rebuild, to find the money to put back the lives of people who are seriously at risk today?

What are we doing?

Well, here is what we are doing. We have got a President that is in a third grade brawl with a world leader. You may as well be in a classroom or on the school grounds with a bunch of third graders calling out each other about their mother. That is what our President did over the weekend.

How did that promote our humanity, our empathy? Not a bit.

How did it promote our division? Oh, it did a very good job of that. We see fans in the NFL stadiums booing the athletes.

We see more division in our country. We see natural disasters. And our response? Let's pass a bill that will create a humanitarian crisis for 30 million Americans who will lose their healthcare over the next decade. That is what the Senate did over these last few days, a replication of what happened here on the floor of the House of Representatives months ago.

I think Americans thought those days were over when we would see the Senate and the House purposely harm people, purposely set out with legislation to physically harm people by denying them the health insurance that they have been provided over the last few years.

How can it be? How can it be that we would allow this to happen? But it is happening.

Thankfully, four Senators stood up to the President, stood up to the Republican leadership in the Senate and said: No. No. I am not going to set out on a vote that is going to harm people.

I thank them. They had courage.

Where were the others? Where were my Republican colleagues here on this floor who voted to do exactly the same thing months ago? Millions of Americans purposely denied their health insurance.

Where is the outrage?

It is out there. Take a look at the polling. Take a look at the disabled men and women who were in the Senate Chamber yesterday who were physically dragged out of there--a fine testament to America's democracy.

Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage that there is not a bill on the floor this week to take care of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands--American citizens? I guess there is something more important to do.

Where is our President? What is his tweet today? His tweet today is who knows what. I guess he is going to Puerto Rico next week, thankfully. Maybe there will be some humanity expressed and he will put in motion the great power of this administration to bring relief and to ask the Congress to appropriate the money that is going to be necessary. Maybe.

Maybe it will be another tweet about a leader who has the fourth largest army in the world. You have third graders on the school ground bullying and demeaning, and you expect somehow to go anywhere except into a brawl?

There is a road that we could take, but it begins with reducing the rhetoric. There is a road we can take with North Korea. It is called negotiation.

Don't say it is not possible. It is far more possible and would have a far better outcome than all the bombast, all the rhetoric, all the threats.

All of us have been in the third grade. We know what happens when two boys start fighting on the school ground.

These boys have awesome weapons. We have 25,000 U.S. military on the DMZ border. They are ready to fight. We have an awesome military. It should only be used with wisdom. It should not be put at risk unnecessarily. There are tens of thousands of American servicemembers, spouses, and children nearby, and millions of South Koreans and North Koreans.

It is time for our President to speak softly. We know we have a big stick. Speak softly. Tone it down. Move toward the negotiations. It would be far more fruitful. We can do this.

I go back home, as I did this weekend, and I do my community events. People come up to me and say: I am scared; I am frightened. What is our President doing? Why is he acting this way? Why is Kim Jong-un acting this way?

We don't need another crisis. We have got to deal with this. We have got to do it with wisdom, plenty of strength, and determination. God help us if we get in a war on the Korean Peninsula again.

Consider for a moment that the 1953 Korean war never ended. It was an armistice. It is time for a peace treaty. It is time to recognize that there are two countries. It is time to settle this down. It is time for this Congress to turn its attention to the reality of the crisis that faces Americans--yet we don't.

Instead, we have had more than 2 weeks of attention on legislation that would purposely harm millions upon millions of Americans by taking away their health insurance. We have got to put that behind us. We have got to find ways to improve the Affordable Care Act. We must do this. People are hurting.

There are problems with the Affordable Care Act, and we know where the fixes are, but we can't get our colleagues on the Republican side to work with us here in the House of Representatives.

Perhaps we will find Senator Murray and Senator Alexander coming back together again, since it appears as though the ill-begotten Graham- Cassidy legislation is dead. Maybe Senators Murray and Alexander can come back together and work together.

I would ask my Republican colleagues here to work with us on the Democratic side to work towards solutions to strengthen and provide the necessary changes and fixes to the Affordable Care Act. We can do it.

While we are doing that, let us use the normal, natural empathy that resides in each one of us to reach out to those in Puerto Rico, Florida, Houston, and the Virgin Islands and use our innate compassion to provide the resources for them to rebuild.

Then, let's take it a step further. Instead of calling out Mexico, instead of getting into a verbal and perhaps economic conflict with Mexico, let us work with Mexico. Reach out to Mexico City now. Provide them with the assistance that this great country can. There are so many things we must spend our time on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who spoke a few moments ago. I ask him to join me here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Espaillat very much for bringing to our attention the possibilities.

The U.S. military is awesome. I am very thankful that Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, together with you and other colleagues, have called upon the President to deploy to Puerto Rico a military task force. The military is the most organized of all of our Federal organizations. They have the ability, they have the resources, and they certainly have the capability of addressing at least the immediate needs of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and even other islands that have been devastated in the Caribbean.

Ultimately, the task falls to those of us who are elected to represent the American people in the office of the Presidency, the House of Representatives, or in the Senate. And the questions we must ask ourselves: Are we meeting our responsibilities; are we deploying the resources of this Nation to assist in these devastated communities; are we providing the funding necessary to carry out these tasks; or are we engaged in legislation that would create a healthcare disaster on top of the natural disasters?

Well, thankfully, it appears as though four Senators have stopped a Republican effort in the Senate that is a repetition of an effort made here in the House of Representatives months ago, to stop the creation of a healthcare crisis in America.

There is more out there that will be brought forward. Tomorrow, my colleagues on the Republican side will meet to discuss tax reform. By all appearances, it appears that tax reform is likely to turn out--at least their version of it, is likely to turn out to be serious tax cuts for the superwealthy and for corporations with a hope and a prayer some day that it might create jobs.

There is precious little economic history to indicate that that would happen, but there is a lot of economic history and studies that indicate you continue to cut taxes for the superwealthy and we will have even a more serious inequality of wealth in the United States. That is a discussion for tomorrow and beyond.

Today, now, the discussion must focus on our American citizens who are not in harm's way, they are being harmed.

My plea to my colleagues here is to put aside these other issues, to focus the great power and empathy of the American people on meeting the needs of our American citizens in Houston, Florida, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and then to reach out beyond to others who have been hurt, wherever they may be--Mexico City, other islands in the Caribbean.

Finally, a plea to our President. Mr. Speaker, a plea to our President: Tone it down. This is not a schoolyard for bombast and for belligerent talk. This is extraordinarily serious. It has been said by people who have followed these issues over the decades that we are closer to nuclear war now than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, please tone it down. Speak softly; tweet softly; don't worry about our big stick that we have. Go to the negotiation table; be humble; be firm; no nukes on the Caribbean peninsula. We can do that. We can do it.

This is my prayer.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be on a roll here, given the last amendment being accepted on a ``yes'' vote.

This amendment would make America more secure by focusing our very limited tax dollars on programs to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists rather than excess national laboratory infrastructure spending.

According to The Washington Post, the world dodged a bullet when ISIS failed to realize that it had the ingredients for a dirty bomb under its control in Mosul for more than 3 years. This underscores the importance of the need for U.S. leadership and resources to secure nuclear material around the world.

My amendment would provide an increase of $118 million for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, DNN, funding. DNN funding includes critical programs such as the nuclear smuggling and detection program, which works with partner countries to improve intelligence, law enforcement, and border security capabilities to detect nuclear material trafficking.

It also supports programs to improve the security of radiological material around the world and to remove it from areas when nuclear materials cannot be adequately and safely secured.

The Make America Secure Appropriations Act makes significant cuts to these programs which keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists and those who would then use that material to do us harm. For example, there is a 30 percent cut from the nuclear smuggling detection funding, a 79 percent cut from the highly enriched uranium reduction programs, and, overall, a $150 million cut to this program.

At the same time, the underlying legislation would increase by 38 percent, a plus-up above what the administration recommended for the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization budget line. This increase was not requested by the administration and is not supported by the Senate. The underlying bill already includes a $59 million increase in infrastructure recapitalization spending and a $71 million increase over the fiscal year 2017-enacted level for maintenance and repair facilities.

We can go on and on. We have heard discussions here already about the trillion-dollar-plus expansion of the nuclear weapons programs.

Specifically, this money that I would move out of this particular infrastructure recapitalization account is for the construction of a new facility to build nuclear plutonium pits. These pits are presumably going to be needed for a weapon that is almost certainly not going to be built, which is the interoperable new bomb.

The interoperable weapon is to go on existing and remodeled rockets for the Navy and for the Air Force, neither of whom thinks it is a particularly good idea. So that program, should it ever come to pass, could be delayed, and we could then use this $118 million now to deal with a known problem.

If, in the future, we decide that we need to be able to produce somewhere between 30 and 80 new pits a year, there is time enough to do that. The account that calls for the maintenance of the existing facilities will provide sufficient funds to meet all of the known needs, with the exception of the interoperable nuclear weapon, which, in all probability, is not ever going to be built or needed.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

That might be sufficient, Mr. Chairman, although I doubt I will persuade the worthy chairman with whom we have had this little tussle back and forth.

The fact of the matter is that there are two accounts to deal with this issue of the nuclear sites and the maintenance of them.

One is a maintenance facility, which is plussed-up and sufficient to maintain and upgrade the existing facilities, particularly the plutonium pit, the metallurgical facility, as well as continue the construction of the highly enriched uranium facilities.

Those are already available and that money is in those accounts. It turns out that this money for recapitalization is for the construction of a new pit production facility. The NNSA claims that it needs that facility to build additional pits beyond the 20 to 30 that could be constructed in the refurbished existing pit.

The need for the new pit production facility is specifically for the interoperable nuclear warhead, which is not likely to be needed. And should it be decided at a future date to be needed, there is plenty of time to build the facility and construct the additional nuclear plutonium pits. The bottom line is that this money is not needed now for that facility.

Could the money be used in the nonproliferation?

It could.

Why were those agreements delayed?

Because of many different reasons, but the fact of the matter is that those agreements are going to be going forward. The fact of the matter is that there is a continuing problem of loose nukes and materials around the world, which can cause a problem. The Mosul situation is one of many examples.

The cuts that do take place in smuggling, in research, and the like are serious. We ought to be paying attention.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the continuation of this discussion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow along on my Republican colleagues, as they were talking about rural America.

As a son of rural America, I agree with much of what they said about the role of the Federal Government in providing support in so many different ways to rural America. Many of the programs that they were talking about are really found in the effort of the U.S. Government to rebuild rural America following or during the days of the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put up here on my easel one of the key documents. This is actually etched in the marble at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial here in Washington, D.C. I think it is instructive as we talk about rural America and what is going on in rural America today, and really across all of America.

During the height of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said these words:

``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

During those days of the Depression, rural America was hurting, it was devastated, and many of the programs that we just heard about from our Republican colleagues were put in place at that time.

In 2010, the Congress of the United States, together with President Obama, put in place another program that significantly helped rural America. Today--in fact, just a couple of hours ago--the United States Senate moved to remove from rural America the pillar of healthcare that has provided millions of those 46 million Americans in rural America with healthcare.

Through the expansion of the Medicaid program, the Medi-Cal program in California, many of my constituents in rural America were able to get healthcare for the first time, and they were also able to get insurance because of the cost share reduction program where their insurance premiums on the exchanges were reduced to a level that they could afford.

A significant program for rural America is now in jeopardy as a result of the Congress of the United States passing legislation a couple of months ago that would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with whole cloth, ripping apart the Medicaid Expansion program so that across this Nation some 16 million Americans would lose their Medicaid coverage immediately, and more beyond that.

So in the initial year, 2018, 10 million Americans, many of them in rural America, would lose their health coverage. Across this Nation in the out-years, by 2025, 24 million Americans would lose their health coverage as a result of the actions of the Republicans here in Congress.

Today, just a couple of hours ago, the Senate decided to move forward to make it even worse, to repeal and maybe not even replace, so that 32 million people would lose their coverage if that were to happen. Eighteen million in 2018 and 2019 would lose their health coverage under the program that was proposed by the U.S. Senate last week.

Unbelievable that, here on the floor, we heard a discussion about rural America and the needs of rural America.

I am here to tell you, as the son of rural America, I grew up on a ranch 2 miles from a community that had 500 people in it, that had a three-room schoolhouse and just five of us in the eighth grade class. I have raised my children in a community twice as large, a thousand people in rural America, and I know that the people in my community today depend upon the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, for the healthcare coverage that they now have.

In California, over 5 million Californians gained coverage. The uninsured rate dropped by 50 percent, from 18 to just over 9 percent.

Why? Why on Earth would we neglect this, these statements, this moral imperative set down by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is not what we are going to do for the wealthy.

And keep this in mind, that the legislation that passed this House and repeated over in the Senate would be the largest transfer of wealth of any legislation ever--ever--by the Congress of the United States, transferring more than a trillion dollars from the men and women who have been able to gain coverage in their healthcare.

This is real money taken out of their pockets as these programs disappear because of the repeal and the replacement: a trillion dollars taken from the working men and women and the poor in America and transferred to the wealthy. That is what the legislation did that passed this House; that is what is being considered in the Senate at this moment: a monumental transfer of wealth, the largest transfer of wealth in any single piece of legislation.

How can it be, if this is the test, not what we are doing for the wealthy, not for those who have much, but, rather, for those in rural America and urban America who have so little?

America ought to be upset. America ought to be outraged at what is happening today.

We need to build America. We need a better America. We need better jobs. We need better wages. We need better healthcare, better education.

That is what we need, but where is this Congress going? It is going in exactly the opposite direction. It is taking money out of the pockets of Americans, rural and urban and everybody in between, transferring a trillion dollars from their pockets to the superwealthy.

Who are they? Five members, including the President, in the Cabinet of the United States are among the superwealthy, the 400 wealthiest families in America. They are there in the Cabinet, in the President's office.

What do they stand to gain? A $4 million, $5 million, $6 million, $7 million reduction in their taxes.

What do the working men and women of America stand to gain? Their healthcare is going to be taken away from them, not just in the reduction of the cost sharing, but also in the fact that, as we know it today, the insurance market itself will be so destabilized, so destabilized by the proposed action of the Senate and the House, that it will really enter a death spiral, because the proposed laws allow the healthy to opt out, and those who need insurance would continue to try to get their insurance in an ever-increasing market of people who have high health expenses. That is called a death spiral.

I know this. I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and we fought all those 8 years, from 1991 until I left that office in 2006, we fought to try to put in place laws that are now in place as a result of ObamaCare. The insurance companies cannot discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. The fact that you are a woman, the fact that you are older, they cannot discriminate. But the bill that is now being debated in the Senate and will be back here in the House allows for a return to those days of discrimination.

So if you happen to need healthcare, if you happen to have a preexisting condition, if you happen to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or you happen to be 60 years or 50 years of age, you will be hit with a heavy increase in your premiums, perhaps two- to threefold increases. That is what they are promising Americans.

We can't let it happen. And interestingly enough, America is pushing back. They say: No more. No more. What we want is better healthcare. We don't want to lose our healthcare policy. What we want is better education. We want you in Congress to work on the education systems, on the skills that my children need, your children need to be able to get a decent job.

Americans want higher wages. They don't want their healthcare ripped away as is happening here. They want us to focus on infrastructure. They want us to focus on the well-paying jobs that occur from infrastructure. Better jobs, better wages, better healthcare, better education--that is where we are going.

And by God, we are going to protect the Affordable Care Act and we are going to stand with Americans. We are going to stand with Americans all across this Nation that say: No, we are not going to let it happen.

Mr. Trump, I know that you promised a repeal, but you are wrong, Mr. President, you are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I pass that message on to the President. You should not take away from working men and women

who, for the first time, are able to get their healthcare and are able to afford the private sector market or are able to get on the Medicaid programs. You should not take it away so that you can give, to the superwealthy, a trillion dollars. It is outrageous.

I need to take a deep breath. I am a bit riled up. I am a bit riled up when I hear my colleagues come in and talk about rural America, where I know, from my experience in my district, there is an opioid epidemic and methamphetamines, and I know that those people are dependent upon the Medicaid program that they intend to rip away.

Okay. Calm down, John. Don't get too excited. Don't get too mad. Take a deep breath and turn it over to my colleague from the East Coast.

Congressman Tonko, you and I have been on this floor many times talking about making it in America, about jobs, about making it better for education. Give me a chance to take a deep breath.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York.

The view from the great State of New York and the State of California, somewhere in between those two States lies the State of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) to share with us the view from the great State of New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, America has been enlightened by the gentlewoman's very forthright statement. The voice of New Mexico has been heard here on the House floor, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that message from New Mexico and what it means with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Thank you so very much for doing that, a very powerful statement, a very powerful voice on behalf of New Mexicans and Americans.

Somewhere between New Mexico and New York lies the State of Ohio, and, Ms. Kaptur, you have represented that State so very well for a few years here. We won't say exactly how many years. But over those years, you have always been the voice for the working men and women of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. Kaptur, thank you for your comments. For years you have been the strong voice of working men and women in the State of Ohio. Thank you for bringing us the message from mid-America.

Also, in your wrap-up, you began to talk about the issue of prevention. One of things that the Affordable Care Act does so very well--ObamaCare, if you will--is prevention, particularly for seniors. There is a free annual healthcare checkup for seniors as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

When seniors get that healthcare checkup, they also are able to understand that they have high blood pressure, incipient diabetes or other illnesses that ultimately, as Ms. Kaptur so correctly pointed out, become extraordinarily expensive if they are not treated.

One other fact is that the Medicaid program in America, more than 50 percent of the total expenses in the Medicaid program are for men and women who are in the nursing homes. We are not just talking about families and

children. We are talking about the elderly that are being cared for in nursing homes.

Now, the result of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the reduction of the Medicaid expenditure is that those men and women who are in the nursing homes will no longer have the support to keep them in a nursing home.

So what comes of those men and women? What happens to them if they are no longer able to have care in a nursing home?

Just let that question hang there because it is a question that our Republican colleagues and the Senate must answer, because the repeal and replace legislation or repeal legislation and wait legislation goes right to the heart of the Medicaid program and the support that enables those seniors in nursing homes to receive that service.

In addition to that, what comes of the Medicare program? We know that the Medicare program solvency was significantly increased to about 15 years. It is not going to go bankrupt in the near term as was predicted before the Affordable Care Act but, rather, extended into the out- years. So the solvency of the Medicare program would be reduced, and the free medical checkups, we are not sure whether they would be able to continue or not.

So it is not just men and women who are not yet 65 years of age, but it is men and women who are 65 that would see significant pressure on the services that they now receive, and quite probably reductions in the services that they would receive both in the Medicare as well as in the Medicaid program.

Mr. Tonko, why don't we chat for a few moments back and forth here.

You in New York, you are faced with the same problems that my constituents in California would be faced with, and that is a repeal seriously hurts people, I mean, physically hurts them. They will not be able to get the medical services that they currently have.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank Mr. Tonko so very much for his comments. He covered the issues very well.

I want to go to two issues really quickly that need to, I think, be wrapped up here.

First of all, the President talks about the Affordable Care Act dying, and it is not going to make it. That could happen because of actions that he is specifically telling the administration to take.

There are three different areas, one of which is being very late in providing the cost-sharing funding programs for those people who are purchasing insurance. It is discretionary right now. We ought to make that mandatory and not given the President the option of not providing those funds. If those funds are not provided, then, yes, the exchanges will collapse.

Secondly, we know that there is the cross subsidization from one insurance company to another called reinsurance that tries to balance out the risk pool of each individual insurance company. Some insurance companies, for many different reasons, wind up with a very high risk, high cost population. Others are able to have a very low risk. The risk needs to be balanced out between those two. If that is not done, then there will be a death spiral amongst the insurance companies.

Thirdly, under the Affordable Care Act, people are mandated to buy insurance or else pay a penalty. That penalty is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which has been specifically given instructions by the President not to enforce the law. That will lead to those young and healthy invincibles not buying insurance because there is no penalty. That will cause the insurance pool to become more risky and, again, start that death spiral that is so much talked about.

The death spiral can be avoided, and the Affordable Care Act is drafted and written in such a way as to avoid it. So my plea to the President is: Use the law. Do not cause the Affordable Care Act to collapse.

Mr. Speaker, please pass on to the President that the President has within his power to maintain the Affordable Care Act. He also has within his power to cause the Affordable Care Act to collapse.

Now, the final point--and help me with this, Mr. Tonko--is that the Democrats have known for 5 years that there are improvements that need to take place within the Affordable Care Act, and we have pleaded with our Republican colleagues to allow those improvements to take place. We have had a deaf ear from our Republican colleagues. So as we go into this possible crisis, let it be known that the Democrats are seeking improvements in a variety of areas. We heard about the drug prices. I know, Mr. Tonko, you were talking in your earlier presentation about some of the improvements that can be made. So jump in here. Interrupt me, if you will.

I thank Mr. Tonko so very much, once again, from the East Coast and the West Coast, I hope, to a message that America has listened to.

I just looked out here in the audience and I noticed that our colleague from Texas is here to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Jackson Lee very much for her comments.

Indeed, we do look for a better deal, better jobs, better wages, better education. That is our goal, and we can do that.

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