Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for his continued leadership in our caucus. It is such a pleasure to serve next to him on the Judiciary Committee. We have a lot of work to do. It is really terrific to be able to do it with him, to talk about the tax plan.

I don't think this is a tax plan. I think it is tax scam. I think it is a heist. I think that the middle class in this country is not going to benefit from this. Middle class Americans who are hoping for a tax break for the holidays are going to be sorely disappointed. Maybe they get a few lumps of coal.

In fact, polling shows, across the country, that this is the singularly most unpopular bill that Congress has considered in a very long time. Seventy-five percent of Americans across this country don't think it is a good idea. They are not fooled by the promises that are being made about what this bill does.

Let's really talk about what this bill does.

We know that the wealthiest will benefit. The wealthiest 1 percent will receive 50 percent of the tax cuts. In 2019, 18 percent of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the wealthiest 1 percent. But by 2027, that number climbs to 62 percent, with an average tax cut of $33,000.

What else do we know about this bill?

We know that the largest corporations will benefit. To pay for this massive tax cut for corporations, the Senate tax bill will repeal the individual mandate part of the Affordable Care Act, something that Republicans have tried to do over and over again this year.

The American people have spoken up and said: No, we know that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. We want our healthcare. We know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but it has done much to protect the healthcare of people across this country.

Yet, in spite of that, the repeal of the individual mandate has been put into the Senate tax bill, and it would result in 13 million more people being uninsured. It would also result in a 10 percent increase in premiums for Americans across the country, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

We know, also, that this bill is wholly fiscally irresponsible. It is funny. For years, Republicans have yelled and screamed about the huge deficits we have, yet this bill would add between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion in deficits to what we already have. That would lead to a mandatory cut in critical programs.

Let's just talk for a minute about what exactly this tax scam will mean for ordinary Americans across the country.

In order to pay for the tax cuts that we have talked about for the wealthiest and the largest corporations, it means that millions of working families and poor folks across this country are going to end up paying more. Not only that, there are incentives in this bill that would actually create an incentive for American companies to take jobs off of Main Street, close factories here in the United States, and move those jobs overseas. It will make it harder for families to make ends meet.

The Senate bill would raise taxes on 78 million middle class families, and millions of families across the country would lose their healthcare. In my district alone, nearly 31,000 constituents would lose their healthcare.

This bill would also put real roadblocks in the way of young people looking to get ahead.

Two of the eliminations of tax exemptions in this tax bill that offend me the most and should offend all Americans across the country are, number one, there is, essentially, a tax on being sick. There is a tax on long-term care for Americans across this country.

Right now, if you have a family member who is in long-term care or has a serious illness, the expenses that you pay for that individual, that family member, you can deduct those medical expenses. With this tax scam, the tax heist that is being proposed, you would no longer be able to deduct those medical expenses. So you are being taxed for being ill or for needing care as you get older.

In addition, we are taxing education. We already know that there is $1.4 trillion in student loan debt across this country, more than even credit card debt in this country. Young people have to make these terrible choices about whether they are going to go $80,000 into debt or whether they are not going to get higher education. That is wrong.

This tax bill would actually take away some of the tax benefits that we give to graduate students, for example, when they get help to be able to complete their graduate education. It would take away the exemptions that currently exist.

If you are a teacher and you buy pencils or paper or supplies for your classroom, that is currently a deductible expense. It would take that away for teachers, but not for corporations. If corporations buy supplies, that is tax deductible, but not if you are a teacher. That is just crazy.

It prioritizes the wealthy by allowing wealthy families to avoid the estate tax. Let's talk about the estate tax for just a minute.

There are 5,400 families across the country that pay the estate tax. It is a very small number of the wealthiest families. But, in fact, what this does is say that is even too much. We are going to double the exemption. Now, $11 million, even fewer families are going to pay that, but it is going to cost middle class families a couple of hundred billion dollars in revenue.

The experts across the spectrum are arriving at the same conclusion: this bill is bad for regular working families.

The National Association of Realtors has said this: The Senate tax bill ``puts home values at risk and dramatically undercuts the incentive to own a home . . . our estimates show that home values stand to fall by an average of more than 10 percent, and even greater in high-cost areas.''

How about the Fraternal Order of Police? ``The FOP is very concerned that the partial or total elimination of SALT deductions,'' something very important to my home State of Washington, ``will endanger the ability of our State and local government to fund these agencies and recruit the men and women we need to keep us safe.''

That is a quote from the Fraternal Order of Police.

The American Council on Education has said this: ``As a result, we are deeply concerned that at a time when post-secondary degrees and credentials have never been more important to individuals, the economy, and our society, the tax reform proposal approved by the Senate could make college more expensive and undermine the financial stability of higher education institutions.''

Let's be clear about what is happening here. The Republicans have a plan, and it is like a little three-step dance:

First, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from middle class families and the poorest amongst us to the wealthiest corporations who are already not paying their fair share.

Second, when you do that transfer, explode the deficit. The estimates are that $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion would be added to the deficit.

Finally, use the fact that you are exploding the deficit to actually cut programs that are critical to Americans across the country, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We know that, as written, this bill would trigger mandatory spending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid of significant amounts.

So the reality is that we are in a situation where this is incredibly unpopular. The polling shows right now that Americans are not buying this tax scam: 68 percent say that the tax bill helps the wealthiest; 54 percent say the tax bill favors big Republican donors; 61 percent say that Medicare and Social Security cuts would ultimately end up being the vehicle that is used to pay for these tax cuts to the wealthiest; and 68 percent say that changes to the Affordable Care Act should not be in this tax bill.

Here is where we are. The House passed its bill on November 16. In the early hours of December 2, just last Friday, the Senate passed its version.

We are going into conference committee now, which means that a group of legislators from the House and a group of legislators from the Senate get together and they try to work out the differences between the two bills. Then, ultimately, whatever that compromise is, if it is worked out, would come back for a vote in the House and the Senate.

So, now, more than ever, we need the voices of people across the country to call and to talk about the concerns that working people across this country have. We do need a real reform of the tax system to simplify it, to make sure that people are paying their fair share. But that is not what this is. This is a tax scam. It is a heist. It is transfer of trillions of dollars in wealth from middle class families and the most vulnerable to the wealthiest who do not need that money.

The reality is that we need to be investing in the American people. We

need to be investing in jobs and in education. We need to be making sure that middle class families are getting a break, that they can actually think about a future for their kids, for the next generation, that is better than the one they have.

We have very little time, but, Mr. Speaker, I am very sure that we in the Progressive Caucus and we in the Democratic Caucus are going to do everything we can to fight for working people, for the most vulnerable among us, and to protect things like CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, to protect temporary protected status for immigrants across the country, and to make sure we are passing a clean Dream Act. These are the kinds of priorities we should be focusing on, not lining the pockets of the wealthiest corporations and transferring jobs from the United States to tax havens elsewhere.

We have a lot of work to do to make sure that, in this very short period of time, people speak up and speak out and make sure that we do not pass this bill, make sure that we, instead, work together in a bipartisan way for tax reform that actually benefits working families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Raskin for his leadership on the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

Our country is still reeling, Mr. Speaker, from two of the worst mass shootings in modern American history.

From the 58 people murdered in Las Vegas to the 25 killed in a Texas church, how can we face the families of these people and say that this bill is the best we could do?

Studies show that States with laws permitting concealed carry experience an estimated 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime than there would have been without the right to carry laws.

But we don't need academic studies, Mr. Speaker, to know that this bill is wrong. We just need to look at real people.

One of my constituent's sisters was shot in Las Vegas and survived. She is one of the lucky ones. They won't have any empty spots at the holiday table this year because they lost someone to gun violence. Over 14,000 Americans, including parents of nearly 700 children, are not as fortunate, and my heart goes out to them, especially as we enter the holiday season.

Today, we have a critical opportunity to say enough is enough, and I strongly urge my colleagues to stop this heinous bill from moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent in the House Chamber for Roll Call votes 640 and 641 on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 as a result of the flu. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on these two votes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support H. Res. 630, which would require that

each member of Congress, as well as officers and employees of the House of Representatives, complete anti-harassment training each session of Congress. We are in a watershed moment in our country and we in Congress must draw a line in the sand and make it clear that sexual harassment will not be tolerated.

We have witnessed countless accusations come out in the news about high-profile individuals, and millions of women around the country have opened old wounds and shared their stories to show just how systemic this problem truly is. Congress is not impervious. Accusations against current and former members have flooded the news, and it has highlighted how insufficient our sexual harassment prevention and remediation processes have been in both the House and the Senate.

I am proud to join so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this resolution, which is the first step in creating an environment on Capitol Hill that is safe and supportive for everyone. However, we must not let this be our last action. We cannot introduce this bill and wash our hands of the problem. We must continue to work in a bipartisan manner to improve the complaint and investigation procedures in both chambers, and we must evaluate the rules and scope of the Ethics Committee to ensure the committee is fully staffed and prepared to evaluate sexual harassment cases in a timely manner. We need to implement a process that does not silence women, but gives them a voice and allows them to be heard.

And, together we must condemn this behavior--regardless of party. We must show that we are united in our commitment to dismantle this system that has shielded perpetrators for so long. We must stand with survivors and demand justice. Today we are showing that we want to ensure that this process starts within the halls of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent in the House Chamber for rollcall votes 642 through 649 on Thursday, November 30, 2017, as a result of the flu. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 642, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 643, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 644, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 645, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 646, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 647, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 648, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 649.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for yielding, but also, most of all, for his leadership on so many critical issues around jobs and infrastructure and, of course, for pulling together this Special Order hour tonight on this very important subject, because I think that the American people should understand that Republicans in Congress are trying to literally rewrite the U.S. economy with no hearings. There were a couple of markups, but those are not hearings.

We only just have been receiving some of the information about what is even in the bill to be able to then see what the effects are. The reality is that we owe it to the American people to share how this bill will affect their wallets, their housing, their education, their healthcare.

Contrary to what the majority would have you believe, this tax bill is yet another vehicle for Republicans to raise taxes on millions of middle class families and reward the wealthiest and the largest corporations by handing them trillions of dollars worth of taxes.

I think that Democrats certainly would love to see, as my colleague said, real tax reform; by that, I mean tax reform that benefits the middle class and tax reform that would allow us dollars to invest in jobs, in infrastructure, in education, in healthcare.

The twist this time that I find interesting is that the Republican majority has mysteriously jettisoned its dogmatic fidelity to reducing deficits because--make no mistake about it--however you slice it, this Republican tax bill will explode the budget deficits.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Garamendi talked about the two-step earlier, and that is right. We are all going to be dancing a two-step, because what the Congressional Budget Office literally just released is an analysis that said that this tax bill will lead to an immediate $25 billion cut in Medicare.

This bill has many provisions in it. We have been talking about the State and local tax deduction elimination, and that is very important to my home State of Washington. We have about 800,000 people who are able to utilize that deduction and were able to reduce their tax liability by more than $2,600 in Republican and Democratic districts

across our State. This deduction is significant to our communities because, really, it guards against double taxation.

The Fraternal Order of Police just came out against what I am calling the Republican tax scam and the SALT deduction elimination in particular, the State and local tax deduction elimination.

Why did the Fraternal Order of Police come out against this?

They came out against this because they understand the two-step that we are going to be dancing. They know that this tax bill and those kinds of deductions are ultimately going to lead to, and this is their words: endangering the ability to fund these essential law enforcement agencies that actually keep our communities safe.

Another crucial mistake that the Republican tax bill makes is eliminating tax-exempt bonds. For folks who are out there who are listening, the way to think about this is, if you have an affordable housing problem in your community, if you have a shortage of housing, which is happening across the country, then these tax-exempt bonds are the way that we help encourage and leverage local and State dollars for affordable housing, with these tax-exempt bonds. They advance, also, vital transportation projects, and they support infrastructure projects and hospitals and colleges and charities.

For example, in my district, Seattle Pacific University has been able to use these private activity bonds to finance nearly $42 million in construction and renovations to the library and to the school of law. Similarly, the University of Washington Medical Center has been able to use these bonds to finance critical medical research that has been beneficial across the country.

In eliminating several education-related tax deductions, the Republican tax bill is also cutting off valuable paths forward for students of all ages to not only improve their lives, but also to join a workforce that depends on 21st century skills.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Garamendi spent a lot of time on this, but repealing the student loan interest deduction is in this bill.

Let me just remind people that we have $1.4 trillion in student loan debt across the country. That is actually more than credit card debt in this country.

This bill, in order to get tax cuts to the largest corporations and wealthiest 1 percent of individuals, would repeal that interest deduction for student loans. In Washington State, that would harm more than 275,000 taxpayers who claim that benefit, and it would raise their yearly taxes by more than $1,000 a year, on average.

This bill also hurts our responsible employers who provide tuition assistance to help workers continue their studies at associate's or undergraduate or graduate levels. Tens of thousands of students in Washington State have benefited from this deduction, and that is true across the country. Nationwide, it is estimated that 70 percent of all companies offer tuition assistance.

There is another provision in this bill that everyone should be concerned with, and that is eliminating the medical expense deduction. That deduction basically says that, if you are suffering from a long- term, very expensive disease, if you have somebody in a nursing home and you have to pay for expensive long-term care for people, or maybe somebody who has cancer, that you can deduct medical expenses for those kinds of illnesses. This bill says: No more.

Once again, repealing the estate tax, which benefits 5,400 of the wealthiest families in this country, in order to provide that tax benefit, we are actually going to take away this critical tax deduction from regular working families around medical expenses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill repeals the new markets tax credit, which, again, was created, really, to incentivize investment in low-income and rural areas. That tax credit is responsible for creating more than 12,000 construction jobs and an additional 11,500 jobs in related industries across my State, just as an example. It is extremely shortsighted to repeal that, especially for an administration and a party that says that they care about investing in jobs and infrastructure.

We haven't seen any package for jobs and infrastructure. I am not sure if you have, but I certainly haven't.

The reality is that this bill, because of this two-step that Mr. Garamendi described, which I will just remind people what that is: the transfer of trillions of dollars in wealth from the middle class to the largest corporations and the top 1 percent, and then through exploding the deficit, which this bill does, suddenly triggering automatic cuts as well as a rationale for cutting more from Medicare, from healthcare, from education, from transportation. That is what we are looking at.

The early word on the Senate Republican tax bill seems to be just as bad, because I just heard before coming onto the floor that Senate Republicans are now saying that, once again, they are going to try to strip healthcare from Americans by including a repeal of the Affordable Care Act individual mandate.

My State knows exactly what happened because we had a situation like that about a decade ago, and we had to dig our way out of that. What it meant was that, essentially, healthcare became way too expensive for everybody. There were too many people who were not buying healthcare, so you were stuck with all the people who needed healthcare, who were very sick. It exploded costs and, literally, Americans across the country ended up suffering because of that.

They weren't able to get rid of healthcare. Three times we have beaten that back. The American people, Republicans and Democrats in urban and rural districts across the country, said: No. We want our healthcare. Do not take our healthcare away from us.

Once again, the Republicans plan to incorporate this provision and try to once again strip healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I really fear for the threshold that we are crossing. I fear for our economy; I fear for our middle class families; I fear for our low-income families; and I fear for the future of this country and for the future of our children, because the reality is what we should be doing, if we were going to raise money through taxing people more, is we should be investing that money into infrastructure, jobs, healthcare.

Not only are we not cutting the taxes for people who need it the most, but we are increasing their taxes to give a tax break to the wealthiest, and we are destroying all of the investments that we need to make into the U.S. economy and into our communities and into our middle class families.

This is an incredibly important issue. I don't think people realize that the Republicans are trying to push through a vote on this bill as early as this Thursday.

I really believe that there are some Republicans across the aisle who have come out already and said that this is not a bill that helps our families, that helps our middle class families and our communities. They have been courageous to say that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank them for doing that, and I want to urge other Republican colleagues across the aisle to do the same thing so that we can protect the livelihoods of our children and our families into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi so much for his leadership and for his constant speaking out on the need to invest in infrastructure and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in Burien, Washington, tomorrow, we will be holding an event to provide constituents information on signing up for healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

With open enrollment season beginning last week, I want to make sure that residents of our district know that they have until December 15 to sign up. And while the Republican majority has been undermining the ACA at every turn, the numbers that are coming in tell a completely different story about how important this act is for thousands of Americans across the country.

More than 200,000 Americans chose a plan on the first day of open enrollment, which is more than double last year. This is all on top of the more than 1 million people who visited healthcare.gov, the official Federal website; a one-third increase in traffic from 2016.

Mr. Speaker, our State exchange in Washington State has reported a 19 percent increase in visits from last year. The surge in enrollment is promising and it is a clear repudiation of the Republican's efforts to strip healthcare from millions across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to spread the word about how their constituents can get covered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Republicans released their tax plan. Unsurprisingly, it is a gift-wrapped tax cut to the rich. Christmas came early, Mr. Speaker. From huge corporate tax cuts to the elimination of the alternative minimum tax paid by the wealthiest Americans, this tax plan will hurt our economy and prioritize the top earners of our country. But there is one person--maybe a group of people--who is very thrilled about this tax plan, Mr. Speaker, and that person is Mr. Money Bags. Mr. Money Bags is really going to benefit from this tax plan.

First of all, the President himself will greatly benefit from the tax plan. It is impossible to know exactly how much because we still don't have his tax returns. He has refused to release them. We would really appreciate, and we demand, frankly, that the American

people know exactly how much he is going to benefit from this tax plan.

Mr. Speaker, as the vice chair of the House Budget Committee, I saw firsthand how the Republicans rammed through a budget plan that paved the way for the massive Ryan-McConnell tax giveaway to the wealthy. Frankly, as a new Member, I find it an affront to the legislative process and an affront to families across the United States in red and blue States alike that we did not have hearings on that budget, that we are not going to have hearings on this tax plan, which is a complete rewrite of the U.S. economy that is going to be pushed through, apparently, in 2 weeks or less. We still have no score on this because we just saw the details of a tax plan today.

The Republicans have made this habit of relying on fake logic and faulty assumptions. They did it with healthcare and the budget, and it is safe to assume that is what we are looking at here.

These cuts do not pay for themselves. Despite the claims that this tax plan is really going to help middle class Americans, the reality is that it is going to hurt millions of American families just to fast- track tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations.

If the Republicans are so opposed to so-called government handouts, as we are always told they are called, then why is it that they seem to be more willing to hand out everything we have to the wealthiest people in this Nation?

Now, we are still exploring all of the details of this tax plan that was just released today, but there is no question that this bill is going to make sure that the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations in this country get a tax cut of a million dollars. If you happen to be in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, then bingo, Mr. Moneybags is going to get a million dollars in a tax cut every year.

Consider this: if this tax bill lines up with the budget resolution, then 80 percent of the Republican tax cut goes to the top 1 percent by 2027; the average tax cut for the top 1 percent in 2027 would be $207,000; for millionaires, the cut would be $230,000; and, as I said, for the top one-tenth of 1 percent, you get to have a million dollars a year. For the middle class, on the other hand, 42 million middle class households would face a tax increase.

Let's not be fooled by this idea that the standard deduction is going up, and let me tell you what that means. It means that, along with the standard deduction going up, you are also getting your credits for individual children taken away, the itemization of it.

So if you have a family with several children, as many Americans do, you will actually end up probably being able to deduct less.

Let's also be clear that when you eliminate the deduction for property taxes and State and local taxes, and you cut all of the services that are going to be required to be cut if you are going to pay for this tax cut, then you will end up paying more in your States, both in terms of the SALT deduction, but also in terms of all of the increased taxes you are going to have to pay at the local level to fund things like infrastructure and education.

Let's be clear that this plan gives a $4 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent and largest corporations, taxes 42 million working families more, and borrows millions from the future to give those tax cuts.

Last week, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to the Republican budget resolution that would have stopped some of the most egregious impacts of the billionaire's budget.

My amendment would have said that none of the tax cuts proffered in this plan should apply to households in the top 1 percent of income earners. It would have plainly said that the United States is not in the business of giving massive tax cuts to those who are already incredibly wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about some of the millionaires in my district, because I do have some. I am fortunate to have a good economy in Seattle, where we have a $15 minimum wage, where we have paid family leave for everybody, yet business is still booming, the economy is doing well. We have people who have done well, and they would like to pay their fair share.

For decades, Republicans have prioritized the interests of corporations and the wealthiest ahead of working class families.

What is being proposed in this budget, this tax plan, is exactly what Republicans in Kansas proposed in 2012.

In 2012, a Republican Governor and Republican Legislature in Kansas passed through the same thing. They said: Let's make sure that we have tax benefits for these passthrough corporations--by the way, Donald Trump owns 500 passthrough corporations; he will benefit greatly from this--and let's make sure that we reduce the tax rates on the wealthiest. In doing so, we will make sure that we are investing in the economy.

That meant, by the way, all those tax cuts had to be paid for. So there was a $700 million cut to the Kansas State budget, which resulted in schools not being able to operate full time, resulted in roads being in disrepair, and ultimately resulted in Kansas' bond ratings going down.

In the end, that GDP growth that we were promised, the economic growth that was guaranteed if you were to put the money into the top corporations and the top income earners that were supposed to somehow trickle down, that growth never came to be.

So, guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Republican Legislature in Kansas rolled back those tax cuts. They said: That trickle down thing didn't work.

The promises of economic growth didn't work, and ultimately they had to move it back. Finally, Kansas is starting to come out of that by investing in working families.

Ultimately, I believe, and I think Democrats believe, if you invest in regular folks, if you put the money into working families, you give them a tax cut and you make sure that they are actually paying less, not more, even if you say that you are giving them a deduction, in the end, they are paying more in this tax plan. But if you invest the money there, instead of taking $270 billion that is proposed by repealing the estate tax--which only a tiny portion of people pay, by the way; that estate tax--and 5,400 families are going to get $270 billion in this Republican tax plan. I say, let's take that money and give it to working families instead of those.

I think that we have a lot of different options. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has put forward our own budget, a people's budget, with our own tax principles. The bottom line is: we believe in ordinary Americans. We believe if you invest there and you give people the opportunity to work in good jobs, to earn good wages, and to really make sure that they have dignity, respect, and can save for the future and send their kids to college, that ultimately builds our economy.

So I am really honored to be doing this Special Order hour with my good friends and colleagues. We are going to do a little bit of a back- and-forth here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) to have him talk a little bit about what we are hearing. Is it true? Is it hypocrisy? What do you think about those debts and deficits?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gallego for his incredible leadership. One of the things, when we think about this plan, there is really--it is a three-step plan.

Number one, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth and tax cuts from middle class working families to the top 1 percent.

Number two, explode the deficit, which we know is part of this deal. We are going to explode the deficit.

Number three, use that exploding deficit as a way to cut spending.

But most of all, I am not sure that the numbers add up. So I wanted to ask my good friend from the Progressive Caucus, Representative Ted Lieu from California, to just weigh in with his wisdom around what exactly is going on with these numbers and what are we seeing in this budget. Does it add up?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Lieu.

I wanted to just point out that there was a study that was done out of Wharton on the tax plan. It wasn't on this most recent version, but I think the majority of the things that are in this are still true in what they analyzed. What they came out with and said is that the assumption of 3 percent growth does not make sense; that, really, what they are looking at is 1.3 to 1.4 percent, ultimately, growth, and that it would create a $10 trillion deficit over time. I believe it was $3 trillion in the first 10 years. I have to go back and check that number.

Essentially, what they are staying is it doesn't work. The person who actually wrote the 1981 tax cut under Ronald Reagan, who was working for Jack Kemp at the time, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post, I believe it was, and said: ``This theory of trickle-down economics doesn't work. We were wrong when we did that, when we said that back then, and it is wrong to look at that same idea today.''

Now, Representative Lieu said Democrats are not opposed to tax reform. That is right if it was real reform. We do think that the Tax Code could be simplified, that it could be fair so that small businesses and working families and folks who are really investing in the economy are the ones to get the benefits of any tax reform, that we would close some of the tax loopholes. Unfortunately, this is not tax reform. What has been proposed is not tax reform. It is tax giveaways to the wealthiest.

I want us to be very clear about what the majority is trying to do here. They are trying to rewrite the U.S. economy with absolutely no hearings. It is, frankly, outrageous that we would not even have a hearing on a major tax bill that is going to affect every single person in this country.

We should have hearings. I don't know what happened to regular order. People talk about regular order, but as a new Member who was just elected last year for my first year in Congress, I can tell you I have not seen regular order. I sat on the Judiciary Committee. We don't have hearings in the Judiciary Committee. The majority of the bills that come to the floor are bills that we have never had an opportunity to have a hearing on. When you look at this tax plan, I believe we should be able to have more than 2 weeks to vote on it.

I think every single American should understand what is in the plan and at least have the opportunity to decide whether or not it is beneficial for them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is happening.

Let me just summarize what we think is happening in this current

version of the tax proposal that has been put forward.

First of all, it is a win for the well connected and the wealthy. That is what the Ryan-McConnell tax bill is. President Trump promised the tax reform would benefit the middle class, not the wealthy; but, unfortunately, rhetoric does not match reality. Instead, this bill that we are looking at now would create a new passthrough loophole that wealthy individuals would exploit to lower their own taxes.

Just as an example, a version of this loophole was used by University of Kansas Basketball Coach Bill Self to avoid paying more than $125,000 in State taxes in 1 year alone. The alternative minimum tax, which we call the AMT, which ensures that the wealthy at least pay more of their fair share, is eliminated in the Ryan-McConnell plan.

While little is known about President Trump's taxes, we do know that, without the AMT, the President would have paid $31 million less in taxes in 2005 alone. So you see why Mr. Moneybags over here is so important to this discussion, because that is ultimately who is going to benefit.

Now, Speaker Ryan also believes, as I mentioned, that we should give a windfall to the ultrawealthy by eliminating the estate tax. Again, that estate tax is paid by less than 5,400 families across the Nation, and in 2016, not one person paid the estate tax in seven States.

So what happens to middle class families? Because if all these wealthy folks are going to get all the money, then the question is: So what happens for middle class families? Because that is really where the attention should be. That was what was promised by Donald Trump.

Speaker Ryan and the Republican establishment have attacked commonsense policies used by millions of middle class families in order to pay for this tax giveaway to the wealthy. So Republicans have taken away the ability to write off your State and local tax bills, forcing millions of families to pay taxes twice on the same dollar earned, except for property taxes, up to a mere $10,000. That is the cap that they are proposing on property taxes.

Americans that are hit with significant medical costs, for example, those who have cancer or ALS or Alzheimer's, would lose their ability to write off these costs under the Republican plan.

The Ryan-McConnell tax bill also eliminates deduction for personal casualty losses. A big blow if you are a victim of crime, theft, or disaster. It also excludes--it eliminates the exclusion for dependent care assistance program, which is an incredibly important benefit for working families.

So in the end, you just have to ask yourself: In order to give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest and the biggest corporations, what does that mean for working families?

It means working families are going to foot the bill over and over again. I believe this is a bad deal for middle class families, for America, and for our economy.

One last thing I forgot to mention is that there is actually an incentive. After all of the talk of bringing jobs back to America, there is actually an incentive in this bill to take work and jobs to a tax-haven country because the amount of taxes that you would pay on that is actually lower than the amount of taxes you would pay if you were to start a factory here in Iowa or Kansas or somewhere in the United States. If you were to actually create jobs here, you would have to pay a higher tax rate than if you were to create that same factory in some tax-haven country in other parts of the world where you don't have to pay--you would end up not paying the same amount of taxes. So this is a bad deal for middle class families.

I don't know if my friend, Mr. Jeffries, would like to speak on the tax excellence, so I am really thrilled now to be able to turn this over to a member of the Progressive Caucus, a leader on our Judiciary Committee, Representative Hakeem Jeffries from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Jeffries for laying that out so clearly.

I don't know how he feels about the idea that we haven't had a single hearing on this bill. We are hearing that we are going to vote on it in 2 weeks.

What is his experience? Since I am a new Member--I just joined this year--I thought we had regular order, I thought we got to debate things, I thought the minority got to speak up, and maybe we got to take ideas from both sides. What does he think about the idea that they are going to try to ram this thing in in 2 weeks?

Mr. Speaker, what strikes me is, when you don't have a process, you don't have discussion and debate, and you try to jam something through, it means you are trying to hide a whole lot. So I just wanted to say that there is an article in The Washington Post today about winners and losers in the Republican tax plan, and here is what they say are winners.

This isn't a Democrat saying this. This is The Washington Post saying, big corporations--number one winner, big corporations. American megabusinesses would get a substantial tax reduction.

And, by the way, that is not just on one level, that is a number of levels. And my colleagues over here know that this is the number one plan here, because there is a clear difference of opinion. You all think that, if you invest in these big corporations and in the wealthiest individuals, you would rather put your faith into those folks rather than middle class families across the country who could actually build our economy.

So this bill cuts the top rate that large corporations would have to pay the biggest one-time drop in the big business tax rate ever; I repeat, the biggest one-time drop in the big business tax rate ever.

On top of that, you would get some new tax breaks if you are a corporation, so you would get to lower your bills.

What I have seen in the polling is that Americans across the country think that corporations are already getting too good of a deal and they should pay their fair share. And what millions of struggling families across the country want is for somebody to actually fight for them, somebody to fight for people who are going to work every day, who are doing everything they can to have an American life that pays them enough money to get a job to put food on the table, to send their kids to college, to retire with dignity, a better deal than the raw deal that they are getting right now. But that is the number one winner.

The second biggest winner, according to The Washington Post: the superrich. And that was the estate tax that I mentioned, which only benefits 5,400 families across the United States who pay that estate tax. But we are going to put hundreds of billions of dollars into repealing the estate tax so that those 5,400 families can continue to earn more and more money on the backs of the middle class.

And, of course, the third one is anyone paying the alternative minimum tax. That is Donald Trump. The biggest part of his tax bill that he paid, on the one tax return that he released, was from the alternative minimum tax. But that alternative minimum tax is now getting eliminated in this bill to benefit Donald Trump. And it forces people who earn more than $130,000 to calculate their taxes twice.

There is one more. They said, ``Hedge funds, doctors, and lawyers''-- that is the fourth one that they mention--as the wealthiest hedge fund managers, who are going to, ultimately, get a sizable discount, while ``under the GOP bill, high-earning small-business owners will only pay a tax rate of 25 percent on 30 percent of their business income,'' the passthrough business rate.

The reality is that even though there are some small businesses that are passthrough entities, most of those small businesses do not get the majority of their income as passthrough income, they get it from other things. The only people who really benefit from that passthrough are those hedge fund managers and folks like that.

Who are the losers? Small-business owners. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents 325,000 small businesses said: Uh-uh, we are not supporting the GOP bill. Why? ``It leaves too many small businesses behind.''

So Main Street is hurting under this proposal.

Who else? Like you said, people in high-tax blue States. So say good- bye to most of the State and local tax deductions from States like California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and my State. My home State of Washington is really going to be hurt by this because we don't have an income tax, so we have very high property taxes, and we have very high other sales taxes. None of that would be--well, property tax, according to this plan, you would get a tiny, little cap on it of $10,000.

And then who else is a big loser? The working poor. Here is what The Washington Post says: ``While the bill includes lots of tax breaks for big businesses and the rich, the bottom 35 percent of Americans do not get any extra benefits.''

So there is one more loser here, which is interesting. It says, ``charities.''

The National Council of Nonprofits says that charitable deductions, when Americans chip in to take care of folks who have been hurt by disasters across the country or they contribute to nonprofits or others, that those charitable deductions are likely to go down under this bill because, interestingly and ironically, the Republicans still enable ``the wealthy to continue deducting

their charitable giving.'' But most people would not be able to get the tax break because they probably stop itemizing their deductions, so you would actually lose all of that.

So I don't know, Mr. Jeffries. I think we are going to have a lot of work to do here to make sure that the American people understand exactly what this proposal is and to really get the word out.

I thank the gentleman from New York for his thoughts.

Once again, I would just draw your attention back to who the real big winner is here in this Republican tax plan. It is Mr. Moneybags.

So if you have got money in bags, millions of dollars, if you are a large corporation, if you are a billionaire, then you are going to benefit from this plan--yes, you will. And you know who is going to pay for that is middle class working families across the country who are going to see their taxes go up, who are going to see their services cut, who are going to ultimately be a part of the plan that has three parts.

The number one part for the Republican plan is transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from middle class America to the wealthiest in the country who don't need it; number two, explode the deficit, because there is no way to pay for this unless you cut a bunch of stuff; and then, number three, cut more. Use the exploding deficit as an opportunity to cut spending even more: raid Social Security; raid Medicare; raid Medicaid.

This is all part of the budget that was passed last week by Republicans. Let me say, there were 20 Republicans who voted against that budget, and I congratulate them for their courage in voting against that budget. It was a close vote. If we had just gotten a couple more, we would have been able to defeat that budget, and we would have been able to at least require a more thoughtful process for how we move forward on tax reform, because part of what that budget vote did is to allow this process to move forward with less democracy, with less vetting, and with less knowledge for the American people.

Once again, I would say that the only reason to do this without a real debate, to rewrite the American economy without a real debate, is if you want to hide who is going to benefit from it. We know who is going to benefit. It is right here. Mr. Moneybags is going to benefit. Working people are going to suffer.

So I know that we Democrats are absolutely committed to making sure that working families across this country, the vulnerable, the low- income, the folks who are struggling every day, who are just making it, who feel like this economy is not working for them because it is controlled by corporations, by lobbyists, by folks who are here not working for the American people but working for their own special interests, we know that Americans want that to stop. Unfortunately, this plan does not do that.

So Democrats are going to fight every step of the way. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is going to fight every step of the way. We have our own People's Budget. We have a real proposal for how to invest in infrastructure, in jobs, in education, in healthcare to make sure that Americans across the country, whether you are in a red State or a blue State, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, whether you are in rural America or urban America--I actually believe we all want the same things, which is we want to be able to put food on the table; we want to be able to put a roof over our head; we want to be able to go to a job and feel dignity about that job; we want to be able to send our kids to college or to higher education so they can get the skills and training they need and not be mired in student debt-- across the country, $1.4 trillion of student debt that we have, even larger than credit card debt--and we want to be able to retire with dignity.

So, ultimately, my friends, what we are going to have to do as Democrats--and I hope that there are Republicans across the aisle who want the same things and who know that this is a bad deal for middle class families, for working families, for folks who are just struggling to make it, who want to have that better deal, better jobs, better future, we Democrats are going to fight for that.

I hope that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who recognize that their districts in blue States, red States, urban, and rural will suffer if this plan goes through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we do have a gun violence epidemic in this country, and the time to act is now.

Exactly 1 month ago today, we witnessed one of the most horrific mass shootings in our country's history, and Congress has done nothing. One month later, legislation on bump stocks has stalled. There is a deafening silence from the majority on any responsible actions on this public health crisis, even though, Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans, including responsible gun owners, support responsible gun safety legislation.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to share a statement written by my constituent Zach Elmore, who is here with us this morning. Zach's sister, Alicia Johnson, was shot in Las Vegas. Thankfully, she survived. This is what he wrote as he sat next to her hospital bed as she recovered:

``My sister was shot in Las Vegas. I have never been more afraid, more angry in my entire life. The problem with shootings around the country is that, unless you know someone directly affected, it is easy to say `what a tragedy,' and move on with your daily life.

``It is not so easy when you are getting ready for bed and one of your sisters calls inconsolably crying to tell you that another one of your sisters has been shot. It is not so easy when you call your mother and she is terrified and crying and all you can do is try to calm her down while you figure out how to get to your sister as quickly as possible. It is not so easy to see your brother-in-law with blood still on his hands from doing whatever he could to keep your sister alive. It is not so easy to see your sister in a hospital bed, unable to move due to a gunshot wound in her back and staples in her stomach from surgery to check for organ damage. We are among the luckiest ones.

``I am sick and tired of thoughts and prayers. If thoughts and prayers had any affect whatsoever, there would be a lot of people still alive today. All these thoughts and prayers would have miraculously pulled bullets out of victims and healed wounds, would have stopped these massacres before they started.

``You know what is better than thoughts and prayers and lines around the block at blood banks and enormous relief funds for victims of tragedy? Creating a society where we don't have to do these things many times a year.

``We waited so long to do anything after Columbine that Virginia Tech happened. We still couldn't talk about it when the Aurora theater shooting happened. That didn't change anything, and then 20 children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Even that wasn't enough to promote change. When Dylann Roof happened, still couldn't talk about it, and then San Bernardino happened. We still couldn't bring ourselves to discuss gun control, and then the Pulse nightclub shooting happened.

``Lord knows we can't do anything about guns, and then Las Vegas happened. And we are still being told that now is not the time, let healing begin, don't politicize tragedy, but by all means send thoughts and prayers to all affected by `insert massacre here.'

``There is no place in society for any weapon which has the singular purpose to kill people. The man who killed and injured more than any massacre in America's history broke the mold for who commits mass shootings. He would have easily passed a background check and psych evaluation. He was affluent and had no known ties to terrorist organizations, but he is certainly a terrorist. The system we have in place allowed him to accumulate dozens of assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition because, for all intents and purposes, he was not a risk to society.

``Let's keep in mind, the Second Amendment of the Constitution was written over 200 years ago when a good gunman might get three shots off a minute with a musket. It is hard for me to believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a world where one man could or would fire 400 rounds a minute into a crowd of people.

``This should not be difficult. How many people have to die before people will apply a little logic to gun laws? Do more children need to die? Does a hospital need to be attacked? What is your limit? Does it have to happen to you or a loved one before you start to think differently about gun laws?

``The people of this country have so much power. We have protested, pressured our Congressmen and -women, and we have seen that work. Why can't we do the same to reduce and hopefully eliminate the insane amount of gun violence in America?

``Excuse me for not being willing to wait to let healing begin, for not accepting that now is not the time to talk about a major problem in this country. There is never a wrong time to stand up for what you think is right.

``My sister was shot in Las Vegas in the latest of a devastatingly long line of mass shootings in this country. We are luckier than 58 people and their families, and likely luckier than many of the over 500 other people who were injured. If I don't talk about it, if we don't truly take steps to effect positive change, everyone reading this will forget it happened because they will be sending thoughts and prayers to the victims of the next mass shooting in America.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the end of the excerpt of his letter. Zach's family's experience illustrates why it is crucial for us to take a hard look at gun violence policies.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will, across the aisle, in a bipartisan fashion, do what is right for the American

people and protect families like Zach's across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Yarmuth for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this fiscal year 2018 budget resolution for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying assumptions are grossly misleading. It assumes fictions like hundreds of billions of dollars from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and it assumes an economic growth rate of 3 percent, which most economists on both sides do not believe is possible.

This budget is merely a vehicle for Republicans to fast-track tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations. Any assertion of cuts for working families is debunked by experts like Leonard Burman, cofounder of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who has called this ``utterly implausible.''

Mr. Speaker, the facts are these: 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent by 2027; the average tax cut for the top 1 percent in 2027 will be $207,000; and 42 million middle class households will face a tax increase, including those earning between $50,000 and $150,000, who will see a tax increase of one-third. That is what this budget lays the path for.

If we want to see where this will lead, let's just look at Kansas, a place where the Republican legislature has rolled back the tax cuts that they passed from several years ago because they simply didn't work and put Kansas' economy into a downward spiral.

We know who wins under this budget resolution. It simply paves the way for a huge tax cut for the wealthiest millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. That is wrong, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is United Nations Day. As we reflect on the value of global partnerships to solve problems, I want to recognize the 40th anniversary of the international global health organization known as PATH, Program for Appropriate Technology and Health.

PATH is headquartered in Seattle, and since its founding, it has been an incredible force for good. It is a place that I had the opportunity to work at for many years in the 1990s.

PATH works in more than 70 countries, improving health for 150 million people each year. PATH has made a difference in countless lives, from stopping preventable deaths of mothers and children to keeping people safe from infectious disease outbreaks.

PATH has also helped make Washington State a global center of development for lifesaving health equity, innovations, and solutions. In 2013 alone, this global health industry generated $5.8 billion in direct economic impact and employed more than 12,500 people.

PATH collaborates with governments, the private sector, and NGOs to advance more than 100 health strategies and technologies. It has saved $14 million per year doing things like preventing undamaged vaccines from being discarded.

Congratulations to PATH.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the cruel immigration proposal unveiled by the White House this week. This proposal goes beyond some of the worst immigration bills. It demands billions more for border security, tightens asylum standards, cuts off legal immigration, and implements a faulty points-based system, undercutting our core values as a country and destroying our economy and our future.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of all immigrants to the United States are women and children, and these policies will disproportionately hurt them. A points-based system eliminates family-based immigration, and it is insulting to the valuable contributions of women, especially.

Nearly 70 percent of all women immigrants with legal status obtained it through the family system, and many are stuck in visa backlogs waiting years and even decades to reunite with their families.

Mr. Speaker, immigration has never been just about immigration. It has always been about who we are as a country and what we are willing to stand up for. I believe the majority of my Republican colleagues want to pass the Dream Act, and I ask them to join us in rejecting these anti-immigrant poison pills and proposing real solutions that benefit the American people and unify our country.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Congressman Adam Smith and I introduced the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act. This legislation is critical to dismantle President Trump's mass deportation machine, to protect families, and to restore justice and due process to our broken immigration system.

Our detention system brings huge profits for large private corporations. About 38,000 people are detained every single day at a cost to taxpayers of over $2 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about two things: dignity and justice for families, pregnant women, people with serious illnesses, survivors of torture and violence. It is unconscionable that we are detaining these people sometimes for months or even years.

Congress can't afford to sit on the sidelines anymore. It is time to make clear that locking people up without due process is not only unconstitutional, it is un-American.

At a time when net migration is zero, when DREAMers are at risk of losing their DACA status, and the world reels from unprecedented numbers of refugees fleeing for their lives, we must act with compassion.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act, and I thank the over 55 cosponsors who have already come on to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), our ranking member, for yielding and also for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this deeply flawed Republican budget resolution.

When we considered this resolution in July, Democrats offered 28 amendments. The amendments that we offered were meant to help set a course away from the disastrous path that the Republican majority and the Trump administration are steering us down.

We offered amendments on a broad range of issues important to our communities and our families. These included protecting our communities from the effects of climate change; preserving healthcare; investing in public health, research, and diplomacy; and investing in our Nation's workforce and infrastructure. Not surprisingly, not a single one of those made it through.

Instead, we have the resolution: a love letter to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, and nothing but a manifesto of contempt for America's working families.

Mr. Chairman, the resolution we will be asked to vote on is based on the same faulty assumptions as the bill that came through committee. These include assuming that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act happened, which it did not, and an unrealistic economic growth of 3 percent.

The Republican budget resolution does little but hurt millions of American families in order to fast-track tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations.

In addition, after all the Republican talk of deficit reduction, this cruel budget resolution massively increases the Federal debt by over $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years and $3.2 trillion in the 10 years after.

Where does putting the interests of corporations and the wealthiest ahead of working families get us?

Well, we have seen where this ends.

Earlier this summer, the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature was forced to roll back its 2012 tax cuts. In fact, a recent Brookings Institution analysis found that the tax cuts resulted in an ``anemic level of revenues,

which led to ballooning shortfalls, causing significant cutbacks in vital programs such as Medicaid, education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, court funding, and infrastructure.

This Republican budget resolution will lead us into that same hole, yet we know that this will only give Republicans license to call for further cuts to critical programs like Medicare, Social Security, and education.

We know who wins under this budget resolution. It paves the way for a Republican tax proposal that gives a huge tax cut to the wealthiest in our country.

Consider this: 80 percent of the Republican tax cut goes to the top 1 percent by 2027; the average tax cut for the top 1 percent would be $207,000; for millionaires, the tax cut would provide $230,000 a year; and 42 million middle class households would face a tax increase, including those people earning between $50,000 and $150,000.

Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is unfair to working families and to our country's future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let's work together on a moral budget blueprint that supports all Americans.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his tremendous leadership as co-chair of the Progressive Caucus; and our other co- chair, Mark Pocan, for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, the People's Budget. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that there are two different visions being presented here. Let's be very clear about what those two different visions are.

The Republican budget says we should invest millions of dollars into tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and the largest corporations.

Our budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, says we want to invest in people. We believe in working families across this country who are working hard, want to have a decent life, and want to build a better future. I choose investing in the people. That is what this budget does. It invests in education, in jobs, infrastructure, research, and science, and diplomacy.

Let me just focus for a minute on education as the gateway to opportunity. The People's Budget commits $1 trillion to help families afford childcare, provides universal access to pre-K, and upholds our Nation's commitment to our public schools, which are the bedrocks of our communities nationwide, through adequate funding and supporting educators with resources that they need to reach every student.

It makes debt-free college a reality by investing in college as a public good. It creates apprenticeship opportunities for all of our districts across the country--red and blue, urban and rural.

Our country's success, Mr. Chairman, lies in that of our children and young people, not in the Republican plan to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this vision, this budget, and to invest in the people.

Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 36, and I rise today for Gina.

Gina, who lives in Seattle, found out at her 20-week ultrasound that the baby had multiple fetal anomalies, both cardiac and brain, that were fatal. The baby would either die before birth or within the first few days or weeks of life.

Gina decided to end the pregnancy, her constitutional right to make decisions about her own body. If Gina were in a different State with restrictive laws, she would not have been able to get the evidence- based and compassionate care that she deserved. This important, very personal decision was made between Gina and her doctor.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is her right, and yet our Republican colleagues continue to try to take that right away from Gina and other women in her position.

This bill not only takes healthcare decisions out of the hands of patients, but, Madam Speaker, it could penalize doctors with up to 5 years in prison for performing these abortions. This is unconscionable.

Madam Speaker, Gina and all women deserve to have access to care that is comprehensive and compassionate. Madam Speaker, on their behalf, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop these bans and support women like Gina to continue to have their constitutional rights and to make decisions about their own bodies.