Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall this very quaint time when some of us arrived in Congress when the legislative session would wind down. There would always be this stellar photograph of the Speaker of the House and the Republican leaders and the Democratic leaders and the Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States Senate, who would be photographed on the front page of most major dailies on the phone speaking to the President of the United States, regardless of what the President's political affiliation might be.

So here we are closing the second session of the 115th Congress when we had time to do this. Instead, this is the second iteration of an irresponsible manner in terms of process that was offered to the Democratic minority in this House.

On Monday night, we got notice of this without even seeing the substance of the proposal that was in front of us. This is not the way regular order functions nor, as I have just referenced, the way that legislative sessions are supposed to conclude.

My friend--and I mean that with all sincerity--the chairman of the committee, noted that the American people are waiting to hear from Congress. Well, let me tell you this about these tax bills. It didn't take the wealthy long to hear from Congress. They heard from them right away, and the offering that they had was more concentrated wealth and more tax relief for people at the very top in America--taking that top rate from 39.6 to 37 percent, a cut in the corporate rate to 21 percent, doubling the estate tax, and here we are again with another vehicle that is not paid for.

So where do we find revenue right now as a percent of gross domestic product? It is at 16.4 percent. And we are hearing, well, just maybe this tax bill might bring us to 17.5 percent, when the historic battle tha the two parties have had in this House has generally been about between 18 and 19 cents on the dollar.

So a year later, what do we have in front of us? The same procedure: closed doors, no hearings, not one witness. And if you pick up some gossip in the hallway about what this is to include, that is generally conceded now to be a point of achievement.

So a year later, we are rushing another package through to correct the errors that were delivered in the first bill.

And, by the way, these were not small errors. A couple of them were big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Not one hearing, not one witness, not one piece of evidence documented to put in front of this committee.

So this is a last-ditch effort by our Republicans to revisit their tax law and ensure that it further benefits those who really are the strongest already in our society. They want to jam through some of these provisions to help corporations at the expense of shining some light on how we might have found a substantive opportunity to achieve a bipartisan outcome.

The American voters delivered a resounding rebuke last month, and our friends don't seem to understand what that message was about.

On election day, the tax bill polled that 49 percent were against and 41 percent were for. And if you think it was just a messaging problem, that would be a mistake. They should have joined with us to advance some very important matters that are in this legislation; and when we would have had an opportunity to fix these together through transparency, hearings, witnesses, I think we could have easily accomplished a different outcome.

I oppose this legislation because it is also not offset. For the third time this year, the party of fiscal rectitude that always lectures us when there is a Democratic President about balancing the budget went out and borrowed more than $2 trillion for the purpose of providing a tax cut to the people at the top--$2 trillion added to the budget deficits.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton did that? The outrage would have been empowering in this institution. We would have heard about it for years at a time. But, no, it is okay to do it and then call it juice to the economy.

Well, there are many items in here that we fully approve of, but we disagree with the approach that is being taken, and we disagree with many of the substantive matters that are being offered.

There is a national principle involved here, and that is, we come to the aid of all members of the American family when natural disasters settle in, not on a piecemeal basis. And we will, I assure you, try very earnestly and very quickly next year to address many of these same issues. And I guarantee you this, for all members of this committee, there will be hearings, and there will be witnesses, and it will be done in daylight to make sure that there is an opportunity for all to be heard, including our Republican friends.

To close on part of this measure as well, this bill significantly erodes the Johnson amendment by allowing certain tax exempt organizations to make political statements during the ordinary course of activities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

So this would allow now priest, rabbi, imam, minister, to stand at the pulpit and offer an endorsement of a particular candidate for public office.

What happened to Jefferson's wall of separation?

What happened to the idea that, unlike Europe and places like that where they have had religious strife for centuries, that we were able to avoid that because of the wall that Mr. Jefferson very skillfully constructed?

This is a dangerous precedent that threatens to politicize charitable and philanthropic organizations.

Finally, the health provisions in this bill do nothing to increase accountability for the device industry, employers, or health insurers. If we are going to provide tax relief to corporations, we should have guarantees that the savings will be reinvested in innovation; put more dollars in workers' pockets, and lower insurance premiums.

Another issue that is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker, is the following: Overwhelmingly, that tax cut went to share buybacks with corporations and dividends. It did not come to the benefit of people who needed tax relief every single day.

There are a number of provisions here that we find very supportable, but the idea that we are doing this in the closing minutes of the 115th Congress, I think, is objectionable to our side.

The proposal before us is not paid for. It did not go through the regular order, and I urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, who has served this institution with great distinction and dedication over many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the very assertive spokesperson from Napa Valley and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the always erudite Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), well-known for her financial acumen.

Mr. Speaker, we don't object to the three brackets being lowered for the American people in the middle class. We object to the idea that there were no hearings on this and the top brackets were reduced, doubling the estate tax exemption, cutting the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. If you want to do that for people at the very end of the economic scale, we are in.

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

Mr. Speaker, could we have clarification as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Speaker, so the holy grail of the tax cut was the constant reference to the stock market. That is what we have heard for the last year. I wonder about some of our Members, if they want to compare their 401(k) to what it was like in October of 2008. Or as we have witnessed that constant reference to the stock market, the stock market, the stock market, and a reminder that at the end of 2017, the stock market, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up to 24,719, and this afternoon, it is at 22,859.

Mr. Speaker, I call attention to that because of the chaotic nature in which this legislative body has functioned: no hearings, no witnesses, legislation crafted, we don't know where, brought to the floor, and then referenced as the achievement of a rising stock market.

So here we are again without one single hearing, rushing through another tax package that is not offset, and doubles down on the original law's skewed benefits for people at the top, again, without a markup or a single hearing.

A rushed process resulted in a failed product. And now, they want to duplicate that process with these changes proposed here today.

The bill includes a number of provisions that could have been reconciled very easily with our side enthusiastically, including the references that Mr. Kelly made to retirement benefits. We are all in.

But the hit on nonprofits--by the way, taking away benefits for parking for some of the nonprofits, is but another example of how this legislation actually lacked substance.

We can do much better. And I certainly want to encourage colleagues to oppose this legislation on process and policy, and just as I yield back, we on both sides here, are very fortunate to have exceptional tax advisers in terms of the staff members, and I want to thank Kara Getz for her work as the chief tax counsel as she moves to her new role in my office as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say Merry Christmas to all, but this tax bill does not help my enthusiasm. But I will still say Merry Christmas to all, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, which have resulted in this bipartisan bill. I am particularly pleased that the conference report rejects controversial provisions from the House bill, which would have increased hunger and hardship for millions of Americans, who are struggling to work. The House-passed cuts would have harmed many children, seniors, and working parents in my home state of Massachusetts, where about one in nine residents currently relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP) to put food on the table.

I would like to comment in more detail about one specific cut that the Conference Committee rejected. It was titled ``Update to Categorical Eligibility'', but the proposal was largely a repeal of a decades-old state option in SNAP that allows states to liberalize the SNAP gross income and asset test by providing them or providing access to a TANF-funded benefit. Repealing this option would have terminated food assistance to close to 2 million low-income people across the country, including families in Massachusetts. The Conference Committee was wise to reject the cut.

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee since 1993 and as a member who was actively engaged in our debates and supported final passage of the 1996 law, I'd like to remind my colleagues of this option in SNAP to use TANF income and asset tests to simplify administration and access to benefits families need.

Under categorical eligibility, states can raise SNAP income eligibility cutoffs and asset limits and align SNAP's rules with those that states set for benefits funded through TANF. With this option, 32 states have lifted SNAP's income limits, extending the program to more working families. Over 40 states have used the option to adopt less restrictive asset tests, that is, the amount of financial assets, such as in a savings account, that a household may own and remain eligible for SNAP. Making the safety net more flexible and allowing states to be more responsive to the needs of working families was a key design feature of the welfare law. This option to expand what was then called food stamps and the option to expand Medicaid were key elements of that purpose. President Clinton set up the guidelines that govern the option which are very much in keeping with how TANF benefits work.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the Trump Administration may attempt to make the policy change Congress specifically rejected, without our authorization. The Administration has signaled that it plans to re-regulate the rules governing categorical eligibility. Let me be clear, the Administration has no authority to roll back or curb the option. The law is straightforward. Households that receive a TANF- funded benefit are categorically eligible for SNAP. And, TANF law is clear that funds under the block grant can go for purposes and populations that cover all SNAP eligible households. This decades-old policy option is not up for debate or reinterpretation. In converting the Aid for Dependent Families entitlement program into a block grant, Congress understood the tremendous flexibility it was giving states to use funds for a wide range of purposes, including both assistance and benefit programs. How states use the funds can be inspirational or frustrating. Many of us wish they would focus more on serving poor children. Nevertheless, the legal flexibility conferred to states under the TANF block grant funding stream to create benefit programs and services with many different purposes and with less restrictive eligibility rules than SNAP also means that states can use these programs to confer categorical eligibility, and provide SNAP for all those determined eligible for such programs. This includes programs and services created solely to leverage this option.

The Trump Administration would be wise not to attempt an unlawful rollback of this option. It would run counter to the law and harm families in need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Chabot and Mr. Sensenbrenner, as well as Mr. Nadler, for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Indeed, it is bipartisan in nature. It is not an effort here to go beyond what the rules currently allow in terms of the cap on visas. It would allow Irish nationals to utilize those visas that have not been exhausted by Australia.

It is, as Mr. Nadler said, not a substitute for immigration reform, however. We note today that the Pew Center has released new numbers on the issue of those who, in America, are undocumented. While these two issues are unrelated, it is important to point out that we still, in this Congress, have to come up with a solution to a long-awaited problem that we recognize across the Nation, and that is what to do about undocumented citizens.

As Mr. Sensenbrenner also pointed out, I think with great accuracy, there are few stories of immigration that can be improved upon over what Irish immigration did in America. In the aftermath of an Gorta Mor, the Great Famine, that took place in the mid-1850s, more than a million people left Ireland and immigrated to the shores of the United States, and a million starved to death on the island of Ireland.

So when you consider that the population of Ireland at that time was about 8\1/2\ million people and today it is about 6 million people, it is understandable as to what that relationship has meant. And America, to its everlasting credit, land of the free and home of the brave, welcomed them.

The story that they told in succeeding generations--first, second, third generations--of which I enjoy that same privilege, it is pretty extraordinary. I call attention to that because I still think that the rest of the world desires to send many of its best to the United States.

It is still, for all of us, this notion that, today, because of the simplicity of travel, you can move back and forth. But what is, I think, a very important component of the story that we just related, when they left, whether it was in the 1850s or, in the case of one grandmother, no return, they were in with both feet. I think what we are pointing out today is that this is still an incredibly strong relationship.

I think Mr. Sensenbrenner was right on target with the commentary that he offered about the reciprocal agreement here. We are not substituting anything. We are simply saying that, for those E-3s that are not utilized, Ireland will be able to take advantage of it.

I again point out that this relationship, for as long as I can remember, has been one of the great relationships in terms of allies that we have had in the history of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican tax sham.

It has been 8 months since the Republicans passed their massive, unpaid-for tax cut without a single Democratic vote. At that time, Democrats and independent experts warned that their so-called tax reform plan that wasn't paid for and that was so heavily skewed to the wealthy and big corporations would harm our economy and damage important programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Now we are beginning to see what many of us feared coming true. Health insurance companies in State after State are announcing higher premiums for next year, while health coverage for those living with preexisting conditions happens to be on the chopping block.

To make matters worse, the Medicare trustees have cut 3 years off the life of the Medicare trust fund because of the Republican tax bill.

Think of it: This vote this morning will add $631 billion to the national debt, on top of the $2.3 trillion that they have already embraced with the recklessness of their tax package.

But instead of backing away from this mistake, they are doubling down this morning. Their second round of tax cuts for the wealthy will further compromise the future of Medicare and Social Security, depriving seniors of the benefits that they have earned.

Today's bill will, once again, demonstrate that they are hardly the party of fiscal rectitude or conservatism. The original tax bill, as I noted a moment ago, adds $2.3 trillion to the debt.

So that people understand, this is all borrowed money that will go to corporations and high-income earners, who undoubtedly will receive the bulk of these benefits in the tax cut.

Now, Republicans want to give the most well-off and well-connected Americans even more tax cuts with their new proposal, again, emphasizing the following: an additional $3 trillion of debt, all based upon borrowed money.

The Republicans are doubling down on this tax law's attack and, once again, harming the American middle class. There is virtually nothing in here that comes to the aid of the middle class, because they give it to them on one hand and take it away on the other.

This proposal would make permanent the $10,000 cap on the State and local tax deduction for individuals, even while corporations will face no limits on their SALT deductions. This, at the same time, we should recognize, eliminates many tax incentives and pretty important incentives for middle class families to get ahead.

So, once again, this package, like the one before it, is being rushed through with no hearings, with no witnesses, and with no input from stakeholders. A rushed and lopsided process resulted in the disaster that we voted on just weeks ago. In fact, my staff has identified more than 100 problems with this proposal, and we are happy to share those with any who are interested.

This provision that we are voting on today is reckless, and it is a cut for the wealthy that leaves behind hardworking families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

A reminder, Mr. Speaker, that this is $3 trillion of borrowed money to provide for a tax cut for the wealthy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a very valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee and the voice of Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, a reminder, this is $3 trillion of borrowed money for this tax plan that the Republicans are offering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, a reminder that this adds $3 trillion of debt that is all borrowed money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a champion of all issues related to infrastructure in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the highly effective Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the distinguished chairman how many more speakers that he has.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close when the chairman deems it appropriate, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to sort through the commentary of one of the previous speakers who said that he took a call from somebody who said: I have three or four homes, and I am not getting enough in this tax bill.

That is the point of this. He doesn't need any tax relief. That is the very example that we have been highlighting throughout this morning.

Three or four homes and they are complaining they didn't get enough? That is a remarkable comment for somebody to pass on in this Chamber.

This bill was bad on policy and it was bad on procedure. Not one hearing on this legislation. Not one witness. So two tax bills totaling $3 trillion of debt, all borrowed money with the promise of higher interest rates coming from the Federal Reserve Board, and they are suggesting that that poor fellow who must be sleeping on the grates with three or four homes needs more tax relief. That is exactly what this argument was about.

So the party of fiscal rectitude has now added $3 trillion of borrowed debt to provide a tax cut for that struggling individual who has three or four homes. Now they want to give him enough, or her enough, to maybe get to five or six homes with the tax bill. Only someone who believes, perhaps, in the argument of Bigfoot would then conclude that that individual needs tax relief.

Every mainstream economist who has spoken about the debt--and this, by the way, cost $631 billion this morning with what they are about to do, borrowed money, added to the debt, added to our children's responsibilities and our grandchildren's responsibilities.

And to make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, this represents a long-term threat, now, to Social Security and Medicare, because they are going to come back and say: Well, the debt is so high that we have to cut Social Security and we have to cut Medicare.

They should back away from the mistake that they are making this morning. Go back to some hearings. Go back through some process. Go back to a conversation with both parties. Barack Obama was at 28 percent, the corporate rate. We could have found a common point of agreement on this.

This sham is a reckless tax cut for that poor individual who has three or four homes. But at the same time, and, simultaneously, they leave behind the hardworking average men and women of this country.

I urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and I want to acknowledge Mr. Pallone, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Brady, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for the good work that they have offered on this as well.

The opioid crisis is not a partisan issue. It is a health, safety, family, community, and economic issue. Everybody in this Chamber today has a family member or knows someone close to them who is connected to the opioid crisis.

H.R. 6 represents the best of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation. This is, indeed, the way policy can and should be done.

The bill includes a number of Democratic priorities to expand treatment options for our neighbors, family members, and friends suffering from opioid use disorders. It includes my bill, with Member Pallone, that would require Medicare to cover opioid treatment programs so that our Nation's seniors might have more outpatient options for treatment.

Opioid use disorders are rapidly growing among Medicare beneficiaries. In 13 States, the highest rate of opioid-related inpatient hospital stays is amongst those over 65. This policy would give Medicare beneficiaries increased access to a range of medication and behavioral treatment options, leading to more hope for long-term recovery.

I am also pleased that H.R. 6 includes the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which would help to stop the flow of opioids through the United States. This legislation stems from the STOP Act, a bill that I worked on with Mr. Tiberi before his retirement earlier this year. I want to commend him, in addition to Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Pascrell, for their work on this bipartisan legislation.

While the bill before us is a step in the right direction, this epidemic is not going to turn around overnight. It needs a thoughtful, long-term, sustainable approach that requires significant Federal investments. H.R. 6 represents the initial step in addressing this crisis, but it cannot be the end. Part of that long-term approach must include protecting and strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

I want to take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their usual good work in this Chamber, for the weeks of hard effort they put in bringing this bill to fruition. The effort exemplifies bipartisan cooperation, and a particular thanks to House and Senate legislative counsel who worked long nights and weekends to finish the bill.

Thanks also to the CMS Office of Legislation and the staff of the Congressional Budget Office who played a critical role in finalizing the bill.

This is a complicated issue, and H.R. 6 is not going to solve the public health epidemic or its impact on society at the moment, but it certainly is a good step. I encourage all of us here in this Chamber today and in Congress to continue to work together to develop policy solutions for members of our community who are suffering from this terrible epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate the Ludlow Lions Club on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. As the world's largest service club organization, Lions Club International is full of members who volunteer their time to humanitarian causes, fundraising projects, and service endeavors not only in their local communities but also around the globe. The Ludlow Lions Club, chartered in 1943, certainly embodies this commitment to helping those in need, wherever need exists.

The Ludlow Lions Club is one of the busiest clubs in Massachusetts and currently has over 30 members who give their time freely to help others. Their leadership, dedication, and exemplary character is undoubtedly worthy of

recognition. Over the past 75 years, the Ludlow Lions have devoted themselves to a near countless number of diverse ventures and fundraisers, including annual food drives, college fundraisers, diabetes awareness campaigns, environmental conservation activities, emergency sight and hearing projects, and various youth development programs like the Peace Poster Project to just name a few. It is evident that the Ludlow Lions Club has made numerous positive contributions to the community of which it takes pride in being an integral part. I am confident that they will continue to serve and represent western Massachusetts with honor and distinction for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of its history the Ludlow Lions Club has truly embodied the motto ``We Serve.'' Its loyal members have routinely demonstrated an exceptional commitment to helping those less fortunate. That passionate dedication is a hallmark of the agency's long and admirable tradition of service in western Massachusetts. On the occasion of the Ludlow Lions Club's 75th anniversary, I wish the organization and its devoted members all the best and much continued prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend Wayne Phaneuf for being named an awardee of the Yankee Quill by the Academy of New England Journalists. The Yankee Quill is presented by fellow journalists to recognize the lifetime achievement of those who have had a broad influence for good, both inside and outside the newsroom. It is considered the highest individual honor of its kind in the New England region. The award is a fitting testament to Wayne's hard work, dedication, and exemplary character as a respected and committed journalist of 49 years with The Republican newspaper in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Wayne grew up in the McKnight neighborhood of Springfield and attended public schools in the area. He went on to American International College in Springfield and graduated from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He then went on to work as a reporter, columnist, assistant managing editor, and now executive editor over the course of his remarkable career with The Republican in his hometown. In those capacities, Wayne has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the communities of Western Massachusetts and beyond. Since The Republican's establishment in 1824, individuals like Wayne have played a significant role in growing the newspaper and keeping the people it serves informed, educated, and connected. Wayne has not only demonstrated an unwavering commitment to ethical, objective, and high-quality journalism, but also maintained a meaningful connection with the community he has served, including making regular public speaking appearances and authoring several books about the history of the region, especially Springfield's Union Station.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again extend my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Wayne Phaneuf. He has demonstrated exceptional service, leadership, and dedication over his 49-year career. The Yankee Quill recognizes those admirable traits, and also Wayne's broad influence for good in serving the public welfare. The Yankee Quill is certainly a well-deserved honor for him. I wish Wayne all the best in his future endeavors, including at the annual conferences of the New England Society of News Editors and the New England Newspaper and Press Association on October 11, 2018, where he will be officially presented The Yankee Quill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate reminds me of the words of Will Rogers who used to say that: ``The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.''

Although I concede that he had a point during most of the past year, hopefully, today will be an exception to the Rogers rule. That is because we are taking up H.R. 3500, a good bill that would prevent the IRS from rehiring employees who have previously been terminated due to poor conduct or performance.

I want to say at the outset that I know most, if not overwhelmingly all, IRS employees tend to be ethical and diligent public servants who have, in recent years, been asked to do much more with much less. That is exactly what the American people deserve and expect from them and we all appreciate those efforts.

The IRS employees collecting our Nation's revenue enable the Federal Government to support veterans benefits, pave roads, protect the environment, fund medical research, care for needy children, and meet all of the other needs our Federal Government asks. This is an enormous task, and we need intelligent men and women of integrity in those roles who will administer our Tax Code in a fair, even-handed, reasonable, and ethical manner. Most IRS employees meet this standard with the utmost attention to their professional responsibilities and we honor their contributions to the country.

When we learn of situations that fall short of those high standards or employees who have conducted themselves dishonorably, though, it is critically important to rectify the situation swiftly. Jobs at the IRS are positions of great public trust, and last year the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration alerted us to a practice of hiring individuals who had previously violated that trust.

During 15 months covering parts of 2015 and 2016, TIGTA found that the IRS hired almost 7,500 people, including 2,000 rehires. About 10 percent of the rehired employees, who were mostly seasonal workers, had been terminated or separated while under investigation for substantiated conduct or performance issues. Four of the more than 200 rehired employees failed to file their own tax returns. Four were under investigation for unauthorized access to taxpayer information. Twenty- seven failed to disclose a prior termination or conviction on their applications, as required.

Although these hires represent but a fraction of IRS employees overall, it is important that we rectify the situation swiftly and prevent this from happening in the future.

So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3500, and at the same time remind them that the outliers we are addressing today should not diminish our respect for the men and women at the IRS who serve the public with, I think, dignity every single day.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank those Internal Revenue Service employees for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues on both sides to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6084, which will provide needed assistance to victims of identity theft. The Committee on Ways and Means has been engaged for some time on the issue of identity theft. In particular, we are stewards of the Social Security

number which is a target for identity thieves because it is the key to unlocking a stolen identity.

Identity theft is a growing problem and online hacking has led to major security breaches in both government, and extensively in the private sector. Americans of all ages, even children, are vulnerable to having their identity stolen. This can wreak havoc in people's lives.

One thing we can do, which we are doing today, is to make sure that individuals can get the assistance they need from the Social Security Administration, SSA, when identity theft has caused problems with their benefits, or if their number has been severely compromised.

For example, fraudsters have been able to steal a Social Security number and use it to file a fraudulent benefit application or to file a false tax return and claim a refund. For some individuals, the theft of their identity creates such damage that they are forced to request a new Social Security number.

Right now, identity theft victims trying to resolve an issue related to the misuse of their Social Security numbers may have to contact SSA multiple times, speaking to several different people, before the issue can be fully resolved.

This legislation provides individuals with a single point of contact in the Social Security Administration that will be responsible for resolving all Social Security-related issues in connection with a theft. This unit will be accountable to identity theft victims until completion, and will track the individual's case and coordinate with other units to resolve all of these issues as quickly as possible.

I certainly support this legislation, which was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee by a unanimous vote. I urge support for H.R. 6084, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the sponsors for their hard work, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4952, the Improving Seniors Access to Quality Benefits Act.

More than 19 million Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2017--that is almost one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries--and that number is growing every year. This bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on the effect of including quality bonus payments in the benchmark cap.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, believes the benchmark payments made to Medicare Advantage plans include the bonuses Medicare Advantage plans may earn from delivering care that meets certain basic quality standards. On the other hand, plans argue that these quality bonuses should not be included in the benchmark cap. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended, among other things, that this interaction be investigated.

This bill, by requiring a study of the issue, will help Congress come to a conclusion on possible solutions.

In closing, I thank the sponsors for their hard work. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4952, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House has passed this bill before, making clarifications on existing religious exemptions for healthcare. I understand that religious groups have important healthcare concerns that should be taken seriously.

While I support this bill, we should be talking about issues in healthcare that our constituents bring up every day: skyrocketing prescription drug costs, increasing premiums, and threats to guaranteed coverage.

I just wanted to make those points, never losing the opportunity.

This bill is pretty simple, Mr. Speaker. Right now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, has an advisory panel for hospital outpatient issues that is comprised of outside experts. The problem is this panel does not include representation for an ambulatory surgical center, or ASC, in its membership, despite the panel counseling on Medicare or ASC payment issues.

This legislation would require the addition of someone from ASC on the advisory panel on hospital outpatient concerns.

Given that Medicare pays ASCs more than $4 billion a year through the outpatient payment rule, it just makes sense that ASCs be represented on this panel.

The bill requires more transparency in determining what types of surgeries are safe to perform on an outpatient basis. More than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries receive care at an ASC for cataract surgery and other surgeries. This bill makes sure that Medicare hears the voice of the ASC provider, so that millions of Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive the outpatient care they want.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 6138, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6124, which closes a longstanding gap in Social Security coverage for members of Indian Tribal councils.

Let me thank Representatives Dave Reichert and Suzan DelBene for their good work to resolve this issue.

H.R. 6124 allows Indian Tribal councils to voluntarily cover their members under Social Security in a way that is similar to how State and local governments do so today. This would allow individuals employed as members of Tribal councils to contribute to Social Security and Medicare and, therefore, earn benefit protection.

I want to emphasize that the decision to participate would be voluntary. Each Tribal council will have the right to decide for itself.

In addition, because there has been confusion around this issue for many years, the legislation allows Tribal council members to receive benefit credit if they have erroneously paid Social Security taxes in the past, even though they were not required to. This is only fair, and I am pleased that the legislation addresses this problem as well.

Social Security and Medicare coverage are valuable protections for all Americans. I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation is moving forward, and I urge its support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the sponsors for their hard work. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week has been dubbed ``health week'' on the House floor. However, based on the legislation we are considering, it is hard to take that challenge seriously. The bills before us today simply don't do very much. Instead, we should be considering measures that go to the heart of what Americans need: lower healthcare costs and high- quality care. That includes lower drug costs and prescription benefits that should be extended to all members of the American family based on the following notion that we should continue to make sure that preexisting conditions remain part of the Affordable Care Act.

More and more families are facing difficult healthcare decisions. All too often, it comes down to not going to an important doctor appointment or cutting pills in half or stopping the taking of prescription medicines altogether. This, coupled with other challenges Americans face at home, like retirement security, addiction issues, and education costs, will make it harder, not easier, for them to move forward.

At home in western Massachusetts, I hear about how people need to make complicated decisions for their families. Congress can simplify these things by bringing bills to the floor that truly address the cost of healthcare without making consumers shoulder more of the cost and give tax benefits to the wealthy, leaving patients to ever growing medical bills.

Unfortunately, I have not seen any efforts to address these growing costs in a meaningful way. Instead, our Republican colleagues continue to lead efforts to sabotage critical health programs. This has led to more uncertainty for American families. This uncertainty also impacts the marketplace and leads to premium increases and adds to the burden for American families already having trouble making ends meet.

Instead of placing more anxiety on individuals facing discrimination for preexisting conditions, we should protect and strengthen already existing programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

The legislation before us is another billion, billion, billions of dollars in unpaid tax cuts. This is on top of the $2.3 trillion this Congress has already passed into law, all with borrowed money. Republicans are using the deficit, which they keep making larger, to justify the deep cuts they plan to make to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. These bills will only intensify Republican calls for further cuts to those critical programs.

American families need certainty, Mr. Speaker. What is happening to our Nation's healthcare at the moment is anything but. It is another obstacle for families to get a leg up and ensure their children and grandchildren are safe and have opportunities well into the future.

The same is true for our seniors and those working to prepare for retirement. They should be in a place knowing they can retire without anxiety and have health programs they can count on in their later years.

The bills before us this day do nothing to solve problems for everyday Americans. Instead, it leaves them further behind, with increased healthcare costs, lower coverage, and certainly sacrifices the quality of care they might receive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is a well-known champion of Americans' healthcare plans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who doesn't understand what $2.3 trillion of tax cuts and further tax cuts of this measure mean as a threat to Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid down the road, that is a short-term view of where we are headed financially in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the reference that my friend from Minnesota offered a moment ago when he referred to the device tax as mythology.

I negotiated that agreement with the industry. They asked for the following: that it be applied to foreign competition. We said yes. This was done in Speaker Pelosi's office with the industry.

They suggested at the time that the 5 percent tax be cut to 2.3 percent. We went along with that. Even though the United States Senate had sent over a revenue package of $40 billion, we cut it by $20 billion.

So that wasn't mythology. It was the way the institution once worked, how we negotiate, go back and forth, discuss, and then come to rational conclusions that might help and acknowledge the 20 million more Americans who have coverage now under the Affordable Care Act--20 million Americans.

I want to say something at this point, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

In the State of Massachusetts, do you know what we are really proud of on this day? One hundred percent of the children in Massachusetts are covered with health insurance, and 97 percent of the adults in our State are covered with health insurance. It is a remarkable statistic, and it is based, in some measure, on the negotiations we had with respective industries to get this legislation over the goal line.

So I know exactly what happened here, and I understand fully what negotiations mean. But we rejected the $40 billion price tag that came from the U.S. Senate, cut it in half and said to the industry: This is, we hope and expect, your share of making sure that 20 million more Americans have health insurance.

That is what this issue is about: accessibility, earlier stages of prevention, getting people into health insurance earlier in life. That is precisely what we did with the Affordable Care Act.

And let me just say this, if I may, as well. Let me talk about the mandate, while they are waiting for their next speaker to arrive. Here is what makes the mandate and its importance.

Why should the rest of us in America pay $1,000 a year in our health insurance plans because there are those who don't want to buy health insurance and end up in the emergency rooms of America, and they thumb their noses at us on the way out because of uncompensated care and they don't pay the bill?

So do you know what would be great, Mr. Speaker? If we all knew the day that our house was going to burn down, then--do you know what?--the day before, we would buy homeowners insurance.

If we all knew the day that we were going to get in that accident, we would buy automobile insurance. But the truth is that insurance spreads risk, and we all know we don't know when those things might occur, so we buy insurance in advance.

So, today, 20 million more Americans have insurance because of what we did with the Affordable Care Act. This idea that you can continually sabotage it and take it apart piece by piece makes no sense.

On this particular issue with the device revenue, I can tell you and I can state to you, under oath, Mr. Speaker, what we did to negotiate this contribution to making America's healthcare more effective and better for all members of the American family, the understanding being that, at the end of life, if you have earlier intervention with healthcare, the end of life might be a heck of a lot more pleasant along the way.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the gentlewoman from Indiana, my friend, just mentioned the tax cut, so let me just point this out. We have gone from a rate of 35 percent in the corporate world to 21 percent, a 14 point cut in the corporate tax rate, and we are being asked to do this on top of it.

Now, Medicare purchases most of the medical devices in America-- taxpayer supported. It is an earned benefit. But here is the other important part of it that I think bears some noting today. It is a terrific industry. It is not in dispute. It is an important industry in America.

But when the gentlewoman says: ``Well, the economy is booming because of these tax cuts,'' a reminder, a fact, not from my Twitter account, but stated on the House floor: The American economy has been growing for 94 straight months.

The idea that this all happened 500 days ago doesn't stand up underneath the magnifying glass of critical analysis. The stock market has been going up since March of 2009.

So when I look at the corporate cut--astounding, by the way-- remember, President Obama said we should have a corporate rate of 28 percent and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a good friend of mine, a Republican, he said, no, we should have 25 percent.

So what did the other side do? Let's see, the difference between 28 and 25? Aha, it is 21. I mean, I haven't figured that out yet.

So, day after day, we roll through here with another tax cut proposal, and we watch the deficits and the debt go to $20 trillion. Whatever happened to the Republican idea of fiscal rectitude, which year after year they lectured us on?

We negotiated this agreement over the device tax, Mr. Speaker, guaranteed. It was accepted by the industry. Again, we applied it to foreign competition. They would be taxed at the same rate. Medicare would remain the largest vendor, the largest purchaser of medical devices.

This is a step backward on America's healthcare plan. If they would just give the Affordable Care Act a chance to

work, instead of these deliberate efforts day after day to sabotage it, we could move on with the business of the country.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, what did the Republican majority do to the cost subsidies for those people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am discouraged to come to the floor today as we squander the valuable time of this body arguing over a pointless resolution that will accomplish nothing for the people of America, whether it is accepted or rejected--nothing.

Let's be clear about what this resolution does and does not do.

We are not arguing today over whether this body will or will not adopt a tax on carbon emissions. This resolution, and I am quoting, expresses the sense of Congress about a carbon tax.

So what we are trying to achieve, apparently, this morning is a discussion of the mood of Congress. Well, we should hold some hearings about the mood of Congress, because I would submit that it is not a very pleasant time to be working on Capitol Hill. Nothing in this exercise is going to have anything to do with a carbon tax. This is better suited to a high school debate than it is to the United States House of Representatives.

There are plenty of people across the country who need real help and real action from this Congress. Every day, American families, people far from this building, far from this city, are struggling with real problems and real challenges.

They feel their standard of living has not improved. They want to feel some security, security that their jobs will stick around--how about holding some hearings on pensions?--security that they can count on health insurance, security that one day they will be able to retire with dignity, security that they will be able to launch their kids into a successful and happy life.

So, on this Thursday morning, the Republican leadership has brought up a sense of the mood of Congress on carbon. We could choose to bring forward legislation that actually would help American families today. We could help them meet many of the challenges that they have. Instead, we are using our precious remaining legislative days to hold an amateur hour on a debate about something that is not going to happen.

This is a vacuous gesture, empty in every form. It is a political stunt. It is not worthy of the time or the attention of this body.

When I go home and talk to my constituents and my neighbors, they want to hear what I, along with the Members of this Chamber, intend to do to ensure that their hard work still translates into a decent life.

Something around us is clearly out of step. There is a growing anxiety around the country that is bigger than our political differences and divide. It is a building sense that, at some point when we all perhaps were not looking, the system became stacked against ordinary people; the rules changed, and hard work isn't enough any longer to guarantee that you can make it in America.

The unemployment rate, for sure, is low, but 65 percent of Americans worry about having enough money to pay their bills. Yes, we can say this morning that downward pressure on wages, essentially, has kept those wages flat for the American people despite the fact that the unemployment rate is advertised at about 4 percent. One in five Americans has more credit card debt than emergency savings. Less than 40 percent of the people in this country have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit or, for that matter, car repair.

It is plain to see in my own district. We have seen the challenges that the people back in western Massachusetts face every single day. Despite the talk of growth in the stock market--which, by the way, has been going up since October of 2009--their salaries have barely moved.

Home prices have gone up by 9 percent in our market last year. A gallon of gas costs 28 percent more than last year. Electricity bills in Massachusetts are up 21 percent over last year. Childcare, saving for college, and, again, retirement and pensions, healthcare premiums-- Mr. Speaker, people are having trouble keeping up. Teachers have to pick up jobs waiting on tables or driving for Uber. Families need to juggle multiple jobs just to get by.

But today's economy, apparently, isn't hard on the top 1 percent in America. Last year, the average bonus on Wall Street--and listen to this number, average--$185,000. It rose 17 percent after our Republican colleagues passed their tax bill last year. That is three times what most American families bring home in an entire year.

It seems like things used to be easier. Do you know why? Because they were easier. Americans born in the 1940s had a 92 percent chance of earning a higher income than their parents had at age 30. Those born in the 1980s have a 50 percent chance of doing so. The tax bill that Republicans passed last year, without a single hearing in all of 51 days--and not, incidentally, with one Democratic vote--will make things substantially worse for these families.

People don't really need to hear these statistics. Intuitively, they know what has happened. Three out of four Americans are not confident that their children will grow up to be better off than they were, and they have every right to be worried.

Healthcare used to be easier to afford. The new Republican tax law raised premiums by 15 percent and weakened protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.

Then Republicans wanted to slash $500 billion out of the Medicare program so that many of our family members who depend on it will be even more challenged.

What have families gotten from the Republicans on healthcare? Higher deductibles, higher costs, and plans that cover much less.

The cost of a 4-year degree at a public college has doubled since 1996. The basic ticket into the middle class is out of reach for too many of our young people today. The ones who do manage to scrape by far too often accumulate debt that makes homeownership or starting a family a long way off.

Other family budget essentials just keep climbing, too. As I noted, gas prices are up 27 percent from last year. Childcare costs rose for the fifth year in a row. This year, a week of infant childcare at a daycare center is $211.

Mr. Speaker, there are concrete actions that we might take right here in this Chamber to support these families. We could spend today working on college affordability. How about some pension hearings to talk about what is happening in the central States as well as the challenges that retirement faces for the American family? And how do we help more people afford that first home or help their parents, once again, prepare for a secure retirement?

We are nearly out of time to get things done in this Congress. We are down to less than 25 legislative days before the midterm elections. If we plan to do anything about the pressing issues facing Americans, this is the time to step it up. But, instead of trying to broker solutions or offer ideas, the Republican leadership has opted to hold a shadow debate.

It doesn't matter how this vote turns out. Let me repeat that. It doesn't matter how this vote turns out. The outcome is going to be identical. Nothing on this issue will change because of what we are doing this morning. Nothing will change.

That contentment with the status quo may be fine for my Republican colleagues, but it is not going to help the families whom I represent. In fact, it pretty much reinforces their doubts about the very work of Congress.

Listen, if you want to debate a carbon tax, let's hold some hearings. Let's hold some discussions about a carbon tax. Let's find out what it would mean for the economy. We might use that moment to test what offshore drilling does for oil as part of the carbon tax discussion or for the families in western Massachusetts. Let's find out what impact it would have on fossil fuel emissions and economic growth. Let's think strategically about how it might affect our geopolitics. If you want to have this debate, then let's have a real debate through hearings in the regular order.

This resolution is really meaningless. The outcome will be nothing, no matter what the final vote turns out to be. It is a waste of all of our time this morning, and we ought to be devoting that time to meeting the challenges that the American people expect us to meet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the Farm Bureau says about the tariffs on agricultural products across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), my neighbor and good friend, a well-informed member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody was demeaning the work that people do, on this side. I think we were talking about the challenging nature of our economy. I don't think the gentleman would dispute the fact that the gig economy has created a downward pressure on wages.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the voice of Chicago and a well-known and well- regarded member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a very knowledgeable woman from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a well-regarded member of the Ways and Means Committee. We are certain he will add clarity to this debate.

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

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

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

I want to compliment the previous speaker, my friend, Mr. Shimkus, on the notion of process, calling up the notion of process.

So here we have had a debate where we have sparred for the better part of an hour, and we are debating a topic on which there have been no hearings.

Now, let me guess. This is consistent with how the tax bill was done in, incidentally, 51 days, without a hearing or without a witness.

So we are being asked to vote on something today, here, on which there has been no opportunity to place the magnifying glass of critical scrutiny on the proposal that is in front of us because, the truth is, what is in front of us is a question about the mood of Congress.

I think all 435 of us could testify to what the mood of Congress is right now, so I don't think it would be one of the more challenging events that we would confront.

But the idea that this is brought in front of the Congress without any opportunity for anybody to examine the underlying legislation and the thrust of what the regular order might impel contributes to the frustration that the American people feel about the institution and its priorities.

So as we have wrapped up this debate over a piece of legislation that will accomplish zip, zero, nothing, it literally does not matter how the vote turns out because the sole purpose of this resolution is to express, once again, the mood of Congress.

I am happy to express the mood of Congress any time that they want, happy to have a hearing on the mood of Congress if that is what they think might get us to a more sound proposal of energy independence, the use of renewables. But no, instead they bring up a piece of legislation here that is going to test how we feel about things this morning.

I think that the mood we should focus on is the mood of the American people. The people I talk to are under stress. They are tired. They are exhausted from working one, two jobs. Labor participation rates at 62.9 percent, 2 million people with opioid addictions, I wonder what their mood is as they listen to the discussion that we have had here on this floor.

They are anxious about their future. They are feeling squeezed because, for years now, the economy has been leaving them a little bit further behind. And I say that about wage growth.

Wages have flatlined for the better part of almost 13 years in America. And now, even as we see some glimmer of hope, the truth is the cost of gasoline and the cost of inflation is going to stagnate their wages again.

So paychecks have been stuck at the same level, and all the things that families need to get by have been getting more and more expensive. Housing, healthcare, college, childcare, utilities, those bills keep growing, but the salaries somehow don't keep up.

Why don't we have a hearing about the mood of people who have not seen any real wage increases--then we would get a better flavor for the debate that we are having today--rather than the mood of Congress on a piece of legislation that has had no hearings and no vetting?

So what about a hearing on the mood of our retirement system?

What about a hearing on the mood of a child's education?

Why don't we begin to talk about some of those issues? Why don't we just have some hearings on some of these issues?

Young people are going tens of thousands of dollars into student loan debt just to try to get a decent start in life. What about their mood?

Seniors are seeing their fixed incomes stretched until they break, forcing far too many to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and their groceries. Let's have a hearing on their mood.

Parents cope with high childcare costs that can eat up most of their paycheck, but the small margin that is left over is important to keep that family going. Let's have a hearing about their mood.

The people I talk to, they are not asking for too much. Their expectations for their families aren't out of line. Nobody is asking for a handout. They are asking for a hand up for opportunity.

Everybody is working hard, but people feel like they are running as fast as they can up the down escalator. Let's have a hearing on how they feel about those costs.

It takes us an unreasonable amount of effort to stay in exactly the same place. Getting ahead feels more challenging and more difficult all the time.

Last December, Republicans passed a catastrophic tax bill that gave away $2.3 trillion over 10 years--without a hearing, without a witness--in 51 days. What about the mood of the American people as they examine it? And we have seen the mood in public polling.

The legislation we have today could have offered some relief to low- and middle-income families, but Republicans chose to leave them out in the cold. In fact, it did so little for the average family that their cuts won't begin to keep up with the rise in healthcare premiums or, for that matter, gasoline prices at the pump.

Instead, the tax bill heaped giveaways on people who are already completely comfortable and thriving--more concentrated wealth.

The people who elected us sent us here to do a job on their behalf, and we ought to take into consideration their mood. They have hired us to get things done for them, and we all take, I hope, that responsibility seriously.

Our activity today has been unworthy of the trust they have placed in us. It has really been a hoax. They have just wasted all this time arguing over a sense of Congress about a carbon tax and the mood of Congress. I could have told them what the mood was here; they just have to ask me.

This is going to be a pointless vote, meaningless in stature, and there will be no outcome whatsoever. This is political theater. It is not governing like responsible Representatives.

I urge my colleagues in the majority to focus this body on accomplishing things in the future that really might help people who sent us here to do precisely that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Dowd Insurance on the occasion of its 120th anniversary. Established in 1898, Dowd is one of the oldest, largest, and most experienced insurance agencies in Massachusetts. Since

its founding, the group has been under continuous Dowd family ownership for four generations, providing counsel and insurance protection for a diverse range of clients.

In 1865, James J. Dowd, an immigrant from County Kerry, Ireland, arrived in Holyoke, Massachusetts with his wife and fourteen children. He began working in a textile mill in hopes of building a better life for himself and his family. A few decades later, one of his sons, who bore his name, went on to found Dowd Insurance--laying the foundation for a family legacy that has spanned multiple generations and continues to flourish today. James J. Dowd, II gave up his career as a professional baseball player and joined the firm in 1916 after his father passed away, and James J. Dowd, Jr. and John E. Dowd entered the family business in 1947 and 1951 respectively after each serving in World War II. The fourth generation of the Dowd family was ushered into the business in 1974 when James J. Dowd, III became a member of the agency. He was then joined by John E. Dowd, Jr., Dowd Insurance's current President and CEO, in 1982. After more than a century of operation marked by profound growth and success, including having joined the International Network of Insurance and opening multiple new branch offices, it is evident that Dowd Insurance has made numerous positive contributions to the community of which it takes pride in being an integral part.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of its history Dowd Insurance has demonstrated exemplary service, leadership, and dedication. Those traits are hallmarks of the agency's long and admirable tradition of service in western Massachusetts, and are certainly worthy of recognition. On the occasion of Dowd Insurance's 120th anniversary, I wish the Dowd family, the agency's partners, and the dedicated men and women who work with them all the best and much continued prosperity.