Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, America loses 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water every single day through broken pipes and leaking pipes. Flowing through those pipes, water, yes, but also dollars, tax dollars, to purify the water and treat it. Eighty-six percent of our households depend on public drinking water, and these systems are failing. I have seen my share of corroded pipes and broken pumps over the years. I have seen communities and businesses suffer from a water main break, which happens 700 times a day across America.

Last week, I visited systems in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Rensselaer, East Greenbush, and Castleton-on-Hudson in my district. I visited that legendary baby food maker, Beech-Nut, in Montgomery County, New York, which requires 275,000 gallons of water per day.

The message is clear: we must invest in our public water systems to protect our public health and to support our local businesses. We have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3387, that has passed through committee and now awaits a vote by the full House. It would deliver critical funding to State and local governments to get this big job started.

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, every life and every job depends on access to safe drinking water. This is the kind of infrastructure plan we need. Let's get this job done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express grave concerns about the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME Council 31.

This case threatens the freedom of working people to join together in strong unions to fight for their right to fair pay, safe working conditions, and a voice in the decisions that will affect their retirement security, healthcare, and the fate of their families.

Since 1980, incomes for most Americans have risen just 1 percent, while incomes for the wealthiest among us rose by 204 percent.

Incidentally, organized labor membership has seen a precipitous decline in this time period.

I want to recognize some of my own constituents who are fighting back against the Janus case, so-called right to fire laws, and the antiworker agenda:

Lorraine Aumic of Schenectady from Local 688;

Bryan Schaeffer of Delanson from Local 886 in Schenectady;

Michele Kuiber of Amsterdam from Local 671; and

Judi Aubin of Clifton Park from Local 655.

I thank them for their leadership in fighting for an increase in the household income for the great majority of Americans coming through the strength of unions.

Mr. Speaker, in the years following the Great Recession (2009-2012), 91 percent of all new wealth created accrued to the top one percent of earners.

From 1980 through 2014, incomes for the wealthiest one percent of Americans rose by 204 percent while incomes for the bottom 50 percent rose by just 1 percent.

During that period, the size and productivity of the U.S. economy have essentially doubled.

President Trump likes to tout a booming stock market, but the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans own 92% of the stocks. The other 80 percent, four out of five Americans, own just 8 percent of that wealth and are being largely left behind.

And things are about to get much worse, because the Trump tax scam does exactly the same thing that has failed us for decades: trickle- down economics. It failed under Reagan, it failed again under Bush. Every time Republicans ram it through, it adds billions, in Trump's case trillions of dollars to our debt, and the wealthy walk away with the benefits. The rich get richer and the rest of us just have to work harder for less.

Meanwhile just in the past six weeks, Sam's Club laid off some 11,000 employees. Carrier cut another 1,500. AT&T laid off some 4,000. Kimberly Clark, the company that makes Kleenex and Huggies, just announced that it would use Trump's tax scam as an opportunity to lay off 5,000 or more workers and close 10 manufacturing facilities.

Janus v. AFSCME is an effort by the wealthy and powerful to further insulate their economic power and ability to restrict access to wealth for the rest of us.

Strong unions are key to unrigging this economy, improving local communities and the lives of union and nonunion families alike.

Unions are associated with greater productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.

Data shows that unions and unionization lead to increased economic growth and competitiveness.

According to the BLS, among full-time and salary workers, in 2017 union members had average weekly earnings of $1,041, non-union members had median weekly earnings of $829.

When union membership is high, entire communities enjoy wages that represent a fair return for their work and greater social and economic stability and mobility. And unions advocate for policies that benefit all working people, e.g. minimum wage, affordable health care, and quality public schools.

Unions provide a path to the middle class for working people by increasing their income and the economic security of their families.

As union membership has decreased because of attacks on working people, income inequality has risen in the U.S. Source.

Through collective bargaining, members of strong unions are scoring victories that help entire communities--like safer nurse-staffing levels that help patients and smaller classroom sizes that help students.

AFSCME Region President, Ron Briggs, suggested you may recognize the following members because they have worked diligently to sign agency fee payers in their locals/units and are active in fighting back against the Janus case, right-to-work and the pro-corporate agenda:

Lorraine Aumic from Local 688 Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance. She lives in Schenectady.

Bryan Schaeffer from Local 886 Schenectady School Districts, Municipalities, and Towns. He lives in Delanson.

Michele Kuiber from Local 671 Workers Compensation Board. She lives in Amsterdam.

Jodi Aubin from Local 655 Environmental Conservation. She lives in Clifton Park.

Janus v. AFSCME is the product of a political scheme to further tilt economic power away from working people and the middle class. It strikes at the freedom of working people to come together in strong unions.

Unions are critical to America's middle class, providing economic stability, a good life, home and education for workers and their families.

CEOs and corporate special interests behind this case oppose letting workers negotiate a fair wage for their work.

The case was brought to manipulate the Supreme Court to satisfy blatantly political goals. In a 10-page State Policy Network (SPN) fundraising letter reported on in The Guardian, SPN President and CEO Tracie Sharp wrote that the goal of their Koch-backed network's $80 million campaign was to ``defund and defang'' unions.

The original plaintiff in this case was Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who launched a political attack on public employees after taking office. A U.S. District Court judge ruled in 2015 that Rauner had ``no standing'' to bring suit, so the legal arms of the National Right to Work Committee and the Liberty Justice Center went looking for plaintiffs to serve as stand-ins for Rauner in the federal lawsuit.

The Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 aims to take away the freedom of--and opportunity for--working people to join together in strong unions to speak up for themselves, their families and their communities. When teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters and other public service workers are free to come together in strong unions, they win benefits like better working conditions, better wages, health care, clean and safe environments and retirement security that benefit non-union members as well. But the CEOs and corporate special interests behind this case simply do not believe that working people should have the same freedoms and opportunities as they do: to negotiate a fair return on our work so that we can provide for ourselves and our families. They are funding this case through the National Right to Work Foundation, because they view strong unions as a threat to their power and greed.

When working people have the freedom and opportunity to speak up together through unions, we make progress together that benefits everyone. If the billionaires and corporate CEOs behind this case get their way, however, they will take away the freedom of working people to come together and build power to fight for the things our communities need: everything from affordable health care and retirement security to quicker medical emergency response times. The CEOs and billionaires want to use the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to create the power in numbers to win better lives for ourselves, our families, our communities and our country.

People in unions continue to win rights, benefits and protections not only for union members, but for all working people and their communities in and outside of the workplace. When nurses, firefighters, 911 dispatchers and EMS workers belong to strong unions, they fight for staffing levels, equipment and training that save lives. And when union membership is high, entire communities enjoy wages that represent a fair return on their work and greater social and economic mobility. Without the freedom to come together, working people

would not have the power in numbers they need to make our communities safer, stronger and more prosperous.

The National Right to Work Foundation is part of a network funded by corporate billionaires to use the courts to rig the rules against everyday working people. For decades, the corporate CEOs and billionaires funding this case have used their massive fortunes to pay politicians and corporate lobbyists to chip away at the freedoms people in unions have won for every single one of us. Now they want the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to come together to protect things our families need: a living wage, retirement security, health benefits, the ability to care for loved ones and more.

This case originated from a political scheme by billionaire Bruce Rauner, governor of Illinois, to advance an agenda benefiting corporations and the wealthy. Rauner launched a political attack on public service workers immediately after taking office, filing a lawsuit on his own behalf to bar the collection of fair share fees by public service unions. A federal judge ruled that Rauner could not bring this action because he was not himself an employee paying fair share fees. But the legal arms of the National Right to Work Committee and the Liberty Justice Center were able to carry the case forward by finding plaintiffs as standins for Rauner in the federal lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case, based on long-standing precedent. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to fast-track their appeal and rule against them in order to more quickly get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unions work because we all pay our fair share and we all benefit from what we negotiate together. Fair share fees provide public service workers with the power in numbers they need to negotiate better wages, benefits and protections that improve work conditions and set standards for everyone. Each individual public service worker chooses whether or not to join a union, but the union is still required by law to represent and negotiate on behalf of all public service workers-- members and nonmembers alike. The corporate special interests behind this case want to take away the freedom of public service workers to have the power in numbers to provide for their families and make their communities stronger. That is why they want the Supreme Court to rule that workers can receive all the benefits of a union contract without contributing anything in return. Look at it this way: If you go out to dinner with a group of friends, you still pay your fair share of the check even if you didn't get to choose the restaurant.

No one is forced to join a union and no one is forced to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates. That is already the law of the land. Nothing in this case will change that. This case is about taking away the freedom of working people to come together, speak up for each other and build a better life for themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of an extraordinary constituent, Lisa Hansen.

Lisa was an Air Force veteran, a longtime civil servant, and an inspiration to many as an ovarian cancer survivor.

In the final years of her career, Lisa worked as a defense contractor at the legendary Arsenal in Watervliet, New York.

During her 14-year battle with cancer, Lisa became an expert in cancer research and treatment. She used that knowledge and experience to become an advocate and a mentor to fellow survivors.

Ovarian cancer will affect 1 in 75 women. There is no diagnostic tool for it. Raising awareness is one of the best and only ways to get women diagnosed sooner.

Lisa made it her personal mission to reach as many women as possible in New York's capital region and beyond through her leadership at Caring Together, Inc. She also participated in the Survivors Teaching Students program, sharing personal experiences with medical and nursing students.

Lisa passed away on January 6. We will remember her passion and selfless dedication to ovarian cancer research and the extraordinary power in her voice and in her story.

Thank you for a lifetime of service to others, Lisa. You will be sorely missed, but thank you for the inspiration you have provided to so many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Amsterdam radio legend, Sam Zurlo, on his retirement this week.

For over 60 years, Sam's voice has greeted the residents and visitors of Montgomery County, New York. Sam has been working in broadcasting since 1953. Now at 82, he hosts the longest-running talk show in the history of the county.

Sam's broadcasting career was born from his service with Armed Forces Radio in Germany, where he delivered a nightly broadcast for 3 years. Sam also worked as a print journalist for the Schenectady Gazette for some 35 years.

Decade after decade, his distinctive voice has been the catalyst for free and open debate. He has brought an air of familiarity and of community to our humble corner of upstate New York. Listening to conversations about current events with Sam has always made the abstractions of politics a little more real. Sam's personality has inspired many and brought light, comfort, and connection to countless neighbors and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Sam Zurlo for his years of exceptional work and a legendary career in local journalism. I wish him the best for an equally special retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor our former colleague and my friend Maurice Hinchey, who passed away last week.

All told, Maurice served 18 years in the New York State Assembly and 20 years in the House.

The story goes that after some youthful indiscretions, a judge gave him the option of joining the Navy or else . . .

Following his Navy service, he returned home to Saugerties, New York and worked at a cement factory, and then as a toll collector on the New York State Thruway while earning his degree at SUNY New Paltz.

He eventually ran and won a seat in the New York State Assembly in 1974, becoming the first Democrat to represent Ulster County since 1912.

I had the privilege of serving with Maurice in both the State Assembly and Congress.

As a freshman in the Assembly in the 1980s, I was assigned to serve on the Environmental Conservation Committee, which Maurice chaired.

During that time, I saw firsthand as he worked to expose illegal waste dumping by organized crime, which led to many convictions.

I saw him investigate toxic contamination of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, which would become the nation's first Superfund site.

He passed hundreds of bills, including the nation's first acid rain law to protect New Yorkers from harmful pollution, especially in the Adirondacks, and the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act.

Governor Mario Cuomo called him the ``environmental conscience of New York State.''

Maurice was elected to Congress in 1992, where he represented a serpentine district, from Poughkeepsie to Ithaca--including parts of the Hudson Valley, Catskill Mountains, and Southern Tier.

It was a tough district with disparate interests, but you could not have found a more fitting representative than Maurice.

No one was as equally as comfortable at a pool hall in Binghamton, a lecture hall in Cornell University, or one of Levon Helm's Midnight Rambles in Woodstock.

Throughout his career, Maurice blended his progressive and populist beliefs in tireless support of America's working families.

Maurice was a fighter--especially for the underdog, the voiceless, and the environment.

He was a rare breed of politician--not a weathervane--he stuck to his convictions. He knew that the best choice was not always the easiest or most popular one.

As a freshman in Congress, despite requests from the President, he opposed NAFTA, knowing it would result in the loss of American manufacturing jobs and suppress wages.

He opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for fear that it would encourage media ownership consolidation.

He opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall because it would allow banks to become too big to fail and encourage riskier investment behavior.

He opposed the unconstitutional, discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. Maurice knew it was just as wrong then as it is today. And he wasn't afraid to say so.

He was a fierce and vocal opponent of the Iraq War.

He had the courage and vision that many lacked to be on the right side of those issues when it mattered, when the votes were casts.

He was on the losing side of those votes, but history has vindicated his positions.

His passion and courage should serve as a model for anyone who enters public service.

Maurice will be remembered most for being a champion of our environment. And I say our environment, because he believed without politics, without the efforts of so many engaged members of the public, there would not be conservation, or national parks, or wilderness. Only through acts of government and relentless advocacy have those national treasures been preserved to be cherished by all Americans.

He led the effort to establish the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and fought for the cleanup of PCBs that contaminated the river . . .

He secured funding to rehabilitate an old railroad bridge that became the Walkway Over the Hudson, which has attracted millions of visitors since its opening.

He supported renewable energy, and sought to prohibit oil and gas development in protected wilderness areas. That effort led him to work on requiring the disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and secure an EPA study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water.

Every two years the Almanac of American Politics writes an entry for every Member of Congress.

They tend to be fair and well-researched, but I take issue with one description of Maurice, where year after year he was described as a ``leader of lost causes.''

For 20 years in the House and 18 in the State Assembly, Maurice sought to give a voice to the voiceless and defend the weak against the powerful.

These are tiring, uphill battles; often frustrating and always difficult, but he never thought they were lost; never hopeless. He believed in them, and so do I.

We do not live in a perfect world, and we never will. There will always be those among us who are disadvantaged and in need. They will always need a champion, a Maurice Hinchey.

Our nation needs leaders who will dedicate their lives to carrying the banner of these so-called ``lost causes'' and the courage to fight, even when it is hard.

Maurice spent his life fighting for working and middle-class Americans and protecting the Hudson Valley and America's environment and natural beauty.

He was one of the most principled and courageous public servants I have ever known.

I want to express my deepest condolences to his wife, Ilene Marder Hinchey, and his children, Maurice, Joseph, and Michelle.

In the last year of his life, Maurice and his family worked to raise awareness for frontotemporal degeneration. I hope his experience can help others understand this terrible condition.

Rest in peace, Maurice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, our ranker, who has done great work on this bill, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents what we can accomplish when we work together for the good of our local communities.

My district includes the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. These rivers were at the heart of our Nation's early industrialization. Along the river banks, factories manufactured carpets, collars, leather goods, and many other products.

Many of those manufacturers have since left these mill towns, but the legacy of contaminated land continues, and many of those sites remain vacant. The contamination, or the perception of contamination, makes developers avoid investing in these very important parcels and properties. Assessing and remediating these sites is critical for environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment.

The Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act would improve an already successful EPA program. This legislation would reauthorize EPA's brownfields program, which expired in 2006. This would extend the program through 2022.

Since 2002, with EPA's support, tens of thousands of acres of idle land have been made ready for productive use, increasing nearby property values and helping to preserve greenfields. These properties have been brought back onto local tax rolls, helping to support local economic development. In the process, more than 130,000 jobs have been created and some $24 billion has been leveraged from this Federal investment.

Local governments are realizing that, through this program, we can turn a liability into a golden opportunity; but, unfortunately, there are many more sites yet to be assessed or remediated.

More than 450,000 brownfields exist across our great country. Many of the easiest, low-hanging fruit sites have already been cleaned up. The more difficult ones will require more funding. In recognition of this, the bill increases the maximum individual grant from $200,000 to $500,000, which will enable more complex sites to be remediated.

The bill creates multipurpose grants, enables nonprofits to receive grants, allows a small portion of grants to be used to cover administrative costs, and makes certain publically owned sites eligible for funding. These are important improvements to the program, supported by a wide array of stakeholders.

Strengthening EPA's brownfields program will continue to create jobs, remediate contaminated land, and promote sustainable economic development. It is also a key factor in creating aesthetics for neighboring parcels, thereby enhancing the entire regional aspect of certain given regions across our communities. This reauthorization will give communities the resources, the capacity, and, indeed, the flexibility to turn more liabilities into opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the majority, including Mr. McKinley; Chairman Shimkus, who is the Environment Subcommittee chair; and Chairman Walden, who is the Energy and Commerce chair; as well as our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for working with us to produce this bipartisan bill, a golden opportunity for us to come together, work together, and accomplish.

Finally, I want to thank the efforts of our Energy and Commerce ranker, Representative Frank Pallone. It was his great work that helped us get here also.

I want to also acknowledge the tremendous work done by staff on both sides of the aisle. In particular, let me please recognize the efforts of Jackie Cohen, Rick Kessler, and Jeff Carroll, along with other members of the Energy and Commerce minority staff who worked so diligently on behalf of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Maurice Hinchey, a beloved friend and an awesome colleague.

I entered into the New York State Assembly when he was the environmental conservation chair for the New York State Assembly. I witnessed his fight to expose toxic contamination of Love Canal where he worked against illegal waste dumping by organized crime. I watched as he worked so hard to protect the Catskills and the Adirondacks from acid rain. It was there that I witnessed his integrity, his intellect, his compassion, and his passion to make a difference.

Then he came to Washington to serve this Nation. He worked hard to establish the Hudson River Valley Greenway. He worked hard to fight against PCB contamination of the Hudson River. He made certain that hydrofracking would not destroy our environment. He made certain that he spoke out against the Iraq war and spoke out against NAFTA and the damage it could do to American jobs.

This was a person who was principled. He acted with those principles with every fiber of his being. Today I want to recognize that person, our voice for the environment, a principled individual that the late Governor Mario Cuomo called the environmental conscience of New York State.

I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Ilene Marder Hinchey; and his children, Reese, Josef, and Michelle.

I know that, in the last year of his life, Maurice and his family worked to raise awareness for frontotemporal degeneration. I am hoping that their fight will continue so that others impacted by this disease will be able to conquer that situation.

Maurice, rest in peace. You are a champion.

We don't live in a perfect world, perhaps we never will. But those who are disadvantaged and those who are in need will need a champion. That champion was Maurice Hinchey, and he will continue to inspire.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Flying Horses of Troy High School football team for an extraordinary achievement: winning a second consecutive New York State Public High School Athletic Association Class AA State Championship.

Troy's Flying Horses are the first team in section 2 history to accomplish back-to-back undefeated seasons and State championship wins.

Their 41-26 championship win this past Sunday over an impressive Lancaster Legends team showed the dedication and heart of each and every one of the players, their families, and their coach--their supercoach--Bobby Burns.

On behalf of countless proud fans and supporters throughout New York State's capital region, I wish the players great success in all of their future endeavors. I, again, congratulate them and salute their passion, their dedication, and their sportsmanship. They are, indeed, an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for leading us in this Special Order. It is so important that the public understand what is happening here with this issue.

The first response ought to be: Here we go again.

Trickle-down has not worked in the past--the far past, the recent past. It is not going to work again.

When does trickle-down become trickle-up?

Well, to suggest that this is a tax reform act is really pulling a trick on the public. This is about a tax cut, and a tax cut for corporations, a tax cut for the wealthiest amongst us.

This trickle-down theory becomes trickle-up because you are taking and raising the taxes on some 36 million families, those that would be classified as middle class families, those who work day in and day out and don't even earn a minimum wage, but they are working. The poorest amongst us, the lowest bracket, gets an increase in its rates.

How is this fair? How is this economic or social justice?

Both measurements prove that it is false. It is not economically sound. It is not socially just. What we are doing here is playing a game with the economy, and we are putting the economy, the American economy, at great risk.

We have seen major efforts made since January of 2009 to grow the economy, and now we have this scam, this trickery, to go and do a trickle-up: take from the working families, deny their purchasing power, weaken their purchasing power, and give it to corporations, give it to the upper income strata in this country. That is a formula for disaster, and we are going to pay wickedly for this effort.

We have always heard about deficit situations. When President Clinton was in office, when President Obama was in office, the Republicans would talk about a deficit situation. There seems

to be no concern about deficit here, a deaf ear to the deficit.

Borrowing to spend. Borrowing to spend. Borrowing $1.5 trillion, which probably amasses to $2.1 trillion to $2.3 trillion with the cost of borrowing, and using that borrowing to spend on the wealthiest amongst us, be they families, individuals, or corporations.

How does that make economic sense? How does that help the economy?

When we look at this situation, we are going to impact your average family in any of our districts, those who are working to maintain a household, to perhaps put aside some savings for improvements of that household or to assist their children in their pursuits of a career, be it apprenticeship programs or college programs. We are going to hurt these families.

Students will realize that their tuition deduction is eliminated-- eliminated. Students will realize, former students, that their loan interest deductions will be eliminated.

I heard a lot about this, Mr. Speaker, when I was home over the last two weekends. We have always deducted exorbitant medical expenses when we did our taxes. We prepared that for our accountant because we had exorbitant medical fees, medical expenditures, be they for families who are walking through life with Alzheimer's or who are fighting cancer or who have chronic illnesses. They deserve to have that deduction.

I am told, on average, it is $9,000. Seventy-three percent of people who make that deduction are earning less than $75,000. This is a brutal response to America's working families. It is a harshness tossed against this economy that has finally started to churn over the last several years. Now we step up and want to wreck all of that.

We have all sorts of efforts that deny various professions, teachers, for one, who will not be able to deduct for classroom expenses where they will, out of their own pocket, provide greater resources for the children who are in their classes that they teach. They are facilitating this discovery, self-discovery, within children. They are digging into their pockets to make that experience all the more real, all the more magical, all the more important, and here we are going to deny teachers to deduct those expenses, but we won't do that for the businesses that want to reach into their own pocket and spend.

We look at this situation, and we understand who gets a fair shake in this deal, in this scam, and it is regrettable.

Now the talk of a Senate version bringing in the individual mandate? Dollars that are made available for families to realize healthcare coverage, and we are going to penalize them and use that to help pay for this borrowing? This is a disaster.

America needs to see this with its eyes wide open and to call your individual Representatives and ask them to tell you how you are going to benefit from this package.

Somebody today told me it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for tax reform--tax reform. Is there reform in this mess? There are the same old loopholes. We grow more loopholes, and they are getting a tax break in addition. What are we doing to our economy here? This is a terrible bill.

When it comes to the SALT deduction, the State and local tax deduction, you will destroy States by requiring double taxation on the investments they make in their own programs in their State. That will severely impact upon people in my home State of New York.

I think it is a disaster that this House, this majority, the entire majority, would allow this bill to come to the floor.

Before you tell me how you are going to vote on this bill, tell me how you tried to stop it from coming to the floor because it hurts so many Americans. Thirty-six million families will be impacted. They will see a tax increase. That is not my word. It is not Representative Garamendi's word. It is coming from the Tax Policy Center.

People are putting this one under the microscope, and they are detailing what is in here and what is not in here, and this is a scam. It is bringing down an economy. It is taking it in the wrong direction. It gives tax breaks to corporations that want to grow their prosperity offshore and making it more productive for them to take jobs overseas.

How can we tolerate this? No wonder they are trying to rush the bill now. Get it done in a day or two before America finds out what is in it. This is a tax disaster, not a tax reform. It is a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the working families and those who work below minimum wage in this country, people who make it their goal to be self- sufficient, and now this is how they are rewarded.

Mr. Speaker, I just would love to point out, I would encourage middle class America to raise its voice. Raise your voices, because when we look at the repeal of the individual mandate that is being suggested here, you are going to rip away healthcare from some 13 million Americans, and that alongside the 36 million families in this country that are going to see a tax increase.

Before that hits home, stand up and speak out. And if you are not going to get a tax increase, if you might get crumbs off the table because, remember, if you weren't at the table, and this was done in veiled secrecy, if you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu.

Here you are going to have these families, 36 million that will get a tax increase, but if you are going to get maybe a crumb off the table, that sunsets, and the other benefits are going to go forever.

This is a monumental change in a tax cut policy. It is not reform. It is tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations at the expense of working families.

Finally, I would just make mention that there would be an immediate $25 billion cut in Medicare. The efforts that were made under the last administration to bring more stability to Medicare, to make certain that it had a longer life out there, are now going to be wiped away. That is a very important program to Americans, very important program. We cannot afford to

have this go through in veiled secrecy on a rush in the next day or two without America knowing what is on the table.

Mr. Garamendi, I would point out, in addition to tinkering with the public utility bonds out there, that public utility financing that will be devastated by this bill, adds to the further woes for building our investments and infrastructure of all kinds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say: Let's do this with our eyes wide open. Trickle-down isn't going to happen. Tax reform, this is not tax reform. Certainly, tax cuts where you aid the upper-income strata and corporations at the expense of an increase of taxes to the middle class is what this is about. It is pathetic. It is devastating. It is disastrous, and it ought to be denied.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, for his leadership and hard work on the subcommittee and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few concerns with the bill before us. But first, let me say that I support hydropower and believe it must be maintained as an important part of our generation mix.

Hydro is an excellent source of reliable, zero-emissions electricity generation. In order to address climate change and increase clean energy production, it is, indeed, critical that we make licensing and relicensing of these projects feasible.

This is an important issue for my home State of New York. Hydropower resources produce 19 percent of New York State's total electricity generation in 2016. The average age of New York's hydropower facilities is over 50 years, and many projects are expected to go through the relicensing process in the next 15 years.

I want to reiterate that Members on both sides of the aisle want to see these projects developed within reasonable timelines. I understand the current challenges in relicensing and the desire to bring greater certainty to the process. However, I do not think the bill before us would address those concerns in a balanced approach, which takes into account the legitimate concerns of State and Tribal governments and environmental stakeholders.

The process that produced this bill was flawed from the beginning. The committee failed to hold a hearing to understand the concerns of State and Tribal governments or Federal resource agencies. These entities would be those whose authorities may be limited by FERC under this legislation.

The bill enables FERC to set a schedule that may limit State and Tribal governments and other Federal agencies from having the time to fully consider and, yes, set conditions on license applications.

An enforceable FERC schedule, outside the control of these agencies, may create a perverse incentive for applicants to slow-walk their responses to information requests from other agencies and State governments, effectively running out the clock and preventing conditions from being required on the application.

Our water resources are precious. Different stakeholders have a variety of expectations and demands--power generation, recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, drinking water, and agriculture. Managing these resources effectively is about balancing those often-competing interests.

The Democratic alternative addresses the schedule concern by allowing stakeholders to be involved in the creation of the schedule-setting process. But I also believe FERC has some of the necessary tools already in the underutilized Integrated Licensing Process which encourages all stakeholders to engage in a robust, information sharing process up front.

Now, finally, to set the record straight, I listened intently as the gentlewoman from Washington State, the sponsor of the bill, spoke to the fact that the Standing Rock Sioux were, indeed, represented at hearings, that they had a witness at the FERC hearings. They were there to discuss pipelines and not hydro.

Mr. Chairman, so I am opposing this bill today, but I hope we can move forward with a truly bipartisan process in the future to improve the licensing process while respecting the needs of all stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Ryan-McConnell tax plan that puts the interests of wealthy elites and corporations ahead of the needs of the American people.

This bill tears away protections for Americans with student loans and Americans who choose to adopt children. It strips support for individuals with unexpected health challenges, even those whose homes have burned down.

Under this plan, some 8 million American families will see their taxes go up almost immediately, and millions more will face tax increases in the future.

All this is done while giving permanent tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars. This puts America's social safety net and our economic future in deep jeopardy.

This is not the type of tax relief the American middle class and working poor need--or deserve--right now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every one of my colleagues to put the needs of the American people first and oppose the very disastrous Ryan-McConnell tax plan.

Madam Speaker, again and again, President Donald Trump has promised tax reform that would help the middle class; and again and again, the President has broken those promises.

Instead of helping America's middle class and the working poor, his proposals offer big breaks for millionaires and corporations, and painful cuts for nearly everyone else.

The House Republican plan rolled out yesterday, rolls over the middle class and those looking to ascend the middle class. It cuts the estate tax, a tax that only affects a few thousand of the wealthiest American families, all while raising taxes on the lowest income bracket from 10 to 12 percent.

This plan slashes commonsense deductions for middle class families, including those for medical bills, student loan interest, and even mortgage interest. My Republican colleagues claim their plan would save people money,

but they say nothing about the $1.5 trillion their plan would add to the deficit over the next 10 years. That is about $12,000 of debt for each American household.

The American people deserve real tax reform, not just more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful and those connected.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR programs are critical to supporting our Nation's most forward-thinking entrepreneurs and innovators. I am relieved that we are preserving the critical parts of the programs and continuing to improve upon the programs themselves.

These programs have proven to be one of the most successful Federal programs for technological innovation in United States history, delivering more than 70,000 patents and valuable innovations in agriculture, defense, energy, health sciences, homeland security, space, transportation, and other fields.

Through Phase I and Phase II SBIR, countless jobs have been created in the capital region of New York. It is through programs such as SBIR that our region has developed the underpinnings of support for a boom in high technology innovation and economic development.

One of many examples of this is Ecovative Design located within my congressional district in Green Island, New York, which has benefitted from the SBIR program over a number of years. These efforts will allow the company to continue its work on a replacement of engineered wood resins that will be economically competitive and nontoxic.

The resin system represents cost and energy savings, and is capable of leveraging existing manufacturing equipment in production today. This funding will help them deliver on the promise of this innovative technology.

Gavin McIntyre, cofounder and chief scientist at Ecovative said: ``We're very excited to bring our new material technology to market and displace toxic formaldehyde-based resins. The SBIR/STTR program was fundamental to how Ecovative got its start and has enabled us to continue to take risks and develop game-changing technology.''

While this bill is a positive step forward towards helping more small businesses, we must do more to help other small businesses develop these types of game-changing technologies.

I recognize the value of research and I will fight to see more funding for all these agencies and, in turn, more funding for the SBIR and STTR programs.

Mr. Speaker, ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is inhumane and unAmerican. Whatever your politics on immigration, America's DREAMers did not choose their birthplace or their path early in life. They are innocents, and they have grown up as Americans. They have attended school here alongside our own children. They share our values and our principles. They believe in the American Dream.

Yes, deporting them hurts our economy, and yes, it damages our standing as a leading nation, but at its heart, this is a matter of conscience.

What kind of justice will we give to kids brought here when they were 6 years old, who grew up as Americans and who have no home beyond our shores?

To make them the targets of deportation is a violation of our national conscience.

Congress must act now to pass legislation to protect these DREAMers. A just nation must not take lightly the judgment of the innocent. Let us not discard our friends and our neighbors for the sake of political theater, not when we can instead draw strength of heart and mind and treasure from their experience, their differences, and the many values we share in common.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, we are indeed one.