Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to mourn the loss of a great American patriot, Major General George W. Keefe, former adjutant general of the Massachusetts National Guard who passed away last week at the age of 79.

A lifelong resident of Northampton, Massachusetts, which I had the honor of representing for 20 years, General Keefe dedicated his life in service to our country, his community, and protecting the freedoms we all hold so dear.

He was called an airman's airman and wore the uniform with great honor and, indeed, distinction.

I knew General Keefe well and got to see firsthand what an exemplary leader and decent person he was. Beyond his military accomplishments and commendations, he was a loving husband, a dedicated father and grandfather, and, indeed, to many of us, a very good friend.

General Keefe enlisted with the 104th Fighter Wing at Barnes Air National Guard Base as an airman in 1956 at the age of 17. He continued to work his way up the ranks, becoming an officer and eventually serving as the wing's vice commander.

In 1999, General Keefe was asked to serve as adjutant general of the Massachusetts National Guard, the first Air Force officer and western Massachusetts resident to hold that post in more than 200 years of history. He retired in 2005, ending what is deemed a remarkable military career.

The motto in the Air Force is: ``Aim High. Fly-Fight-Win.'' George Keefe did that for nearly a half century. On behalf of the United States of America, I want to thank him for his distinguished service to our Nation.

My thoughts and prayers today are with his sons, Gary, Jim, Patrick, Tim, and their families. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6.

It has become all too clear that the ongoing opioid epidemic has gripped our Nation's families and communities. It crosses social spectrums and is a public health, safety, and economic crisis as well.

In Massachusetts in 2016 there were 2,083 confirmed cases of opioid- related overdose deaths. This is a 26 percent increase from 2015 and a 54 percent increase from 2014. In 2017 there was a small decrease, but clearly there was still a strong need to address this devastating trend.

This week, the House has considered opioid bills in committee and on the floor, and some of these, in fact, will expand treatment options for the care that is necessary.

However, a number of the Democratic priorities here, I think, really provide real investment and opportunity. For example, it incorporates a bill I introduced that would expand Medicare coverage for opioid treatment programs. Currently, Medicare does not cover this sort of treatment. This would give Medicare beneficiaries access to a broad range of treatment options, leading to opportunities for lasting recovery.

Although many think of opioid use disorders as a problem faced by young people, many may be surprised to learn that it is rapidly growing among our Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare part D spending on opioids for treatment outpaces enrollment, growing 165 percent from 2006 to 2015. In 13 States, the over-65 population has the highest rate of opioid-related inpatient stays.

H.R. 6 also expands coverage of medication-assisted treatments and allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe or dispense certain opioid treatment drugs. The measure also provides consistent Medicaid coverage for at-risk youth and expands Medicaid coverage for foster youth until the age of 26.

These bills are pieces of a large, complex puzzle. We need to find realistic solutions with long-term outcomes. Part of this approach is to protect and strengthen Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA guarantees parity and nondiscrimination for people who need substance use disorder treatment and mental health treatment. Thanks to the ACA, millions of previously uninsured adults now have access to health insurance and, I might add, the expansion of Medicaid.

There are many efforts here, I think, time and time again, to dismantle the Medicare proposal, as well as cutting back on many of the initiatives that we have proposed in the past. Instead of strengthening and ensuring a sustainable future for the ACA and for Medicaid, some of our colleagues want to cut them to pay for a $2.3 trillion tax plan. Efforts to sabotage the ACA, coupled with premium hikes, slashing preexisting condition protections, and increasing drug prices will lead to more uncertainty.

Dismantling current health benefits would damage any progress that we are making today with the opioid crisis. It would also increase healthcare costs and lower coverage and quality of life for Americans and their families.

I urge my colleagues to recognize that many families, who are devastated by addiction, are going to need the opportunities that we are embracing today.

The impact of the opioid crisis on the labor participation rates in America should concern all of us. According to a recent report, the economic burden from opioids was estimated at $95 billion.

The American people are facing two-pronged obstacle health challenges. Uncertainty remains one of them. We want to make sure that we don't sabotage the ACA. And part of the path forward today is highlighted by the achievement we are all about to recognize.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking Chairman Kevin Brady and acknowledging Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for their hard work on what is really a good step forward.

As I said earlier in my remarks, this bill is not going to solve the opioid crisis tomorrow, but it does include a number of important provisions that will expand access to treatment and recovery options for all Americans. This was a bipartisan piece of work in our committee. I think we can be proud of it. We know many who need treatment now cannot access it, and this bill will take significant steps to change that.

I want to thank Jessica Shapiro and Karl Hagnauer from the House Legislative Counsel for their hours of work in helping us to put together H.R. 6; the staff of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office of Legislation, in particular Ira Burney and Jennifer Druckman; and the staff of the Congressional Budget Office, including Rebecca Yip and Lara Robillard.

Finally, I want to thank the Ways and Means Republican staffers led by Emily Murry, the Energy and Commerce Democratic staff led by Tiffany Guarascio, the Energy and Commerce Republican staff led by Josh Trent, and my own Democratic staff at Ways and Means, which is always superb, led by Amy Hall, Melanie Egorin, and Rachel Dolin.

A lot of hard work goes into this sort of legislation and a lot of complexities have to be addressed during the process, and oftentimes that is not the sort of information that finds its way to the public light. But acknowledging here those people who helped to put this together as well as the men and women of the committee, I think, frequently is missed, and we want to do that so that they receive the, I think, due praise that they are entitled to.

I hope that this, when matched with Senate provisions, will quickly become law.

One of the things that unites every one of us in this Chamber is that we all know somebody--a family member, somebody who lives down the street, or a coworker--who has an opiate addiction. I think that Congress taking this step today in this direction will provide some sense of hope for those families and friends who find themselves, for a variety of reasons, suffering from the pain economically and physically that comes from opiate addictions.

I think, as we close here, this is a good day for the Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, and, I think, for the members and the staffers whose work is reflected in this product.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Over the past quarter-century, BIO has served as the leading voice of the biotechnology industry and has been instrumental in fostering new discoveries that help patients around the world defeat diseases and conditions that were unbeatable only a generation ago.

Biotechnology has not only helped drive the United States' economy forward through the use of renewable and sustainable fuel sources, but it has also helped the world strive to meet the increasing food demands of an ever-growing planet. For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as in other places across our nation, the biotechnology industry is an integral pillar of innovation and economic development. As the largest representative body of biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, BIO has contributed greatly to the scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology that have benefitted our world. I would also like to honor the memory of Henri A. Termeer, an early biotech visionary and pioneering scientist who was a

resident of Massachusetts and provided remarkable contributions to the biotechnology industry with his exemplary leadership, insight, and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the Biotechnology Innovation Organization's commitment to supporting the growing biotechnology industry in our nation has promoted a vast degree of innovation, helped to build a more robust economy, and benefitted a near countless number of patients around the globe. On behalf of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation, I wish BIO all the best and much continued prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Berkshire Theatre on the occasion of its 90th anniversary. It is one of the oldest continually running theatre groups in the country. Located in the heart of the Berkshire Mountains, the group is an exemplary representation of what Western Massachusetts has to offer.

Berkshire Theatre Festival was founded in 1928 in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Over the course of its storied history, it has been both a significant economic driver in the region and a home to people and events which have greatly contributed to the vibrancy of our country's cultural heritage. In 2010, Berkshire Theatre Festival merged with The Colonial Theatre to form the Berkshire Theatre Group, combining two of Berkshire County's oldest cultural institutions and icons of the American theatre tradition. Berkshire Theatre Group's four total stages have featured many critically acclaimed actors and award-winning productions over the years, and constitute a priceless cultural resource for the community of Western Massachusetts. Moreover, Berkshire Theatre Festival's Playhouse, which is now known as the Fitzpatrick Main Stage, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1976. In addition to these remarkable distinctions, Berkshire Theatre Festival also launched a theatrical school in 1929 that continues today to offer internship programs in acting, directing, design, administration, and technical theatre. With these offerings as well as many other educational outreach programs, Berkshire Theatre Group is able to serve over 13,000 students.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Berkshire Theatre has been a group of historical importance and cultural renaissance since its founding in 1928. It's admirable promotion of the arts, focus on educational opportunities, and diverse community benefits are certainly worthy of recognition. Berkshire Theatre has undoubtedly been a center for creativity which continues to enrich, invigorate, and transform artists and audiences alike. As Berkshire Theatre celebrates its 90th anniversary, I wish the group all the best and much continued prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, our country is currently experiencing an epidemic of opioid-related overdoses and fatalities. My community and my State of Massachusetts are not strangers to the heartbreak and devastation that we recognize on this occasion.

There is a lot we can and should be doing about the opioid epidemic, and I am eager to work with my colleagues here in the House on comprehensive and effective solutions. For today, the bill we are to consider is a good start.

The Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention, or STOP, Act of 2018 shores up the ability of U.S. Customs to target and thwart shipments of synthetic opioids like fentanyl into the United States through the mail. It requires the U.S. Postal Service to collect important information about the contents and senders of packages from foreign postal services.

I supported the earlier edition of this bill that was introduced in 2017 because I recognized the enormity of the devastation we face with opioids. I know that there were serious concerns with the earlier version of the bill, especially with respect to the severity of the penalties it imposed on the Postal Service. I am glad that the STOP Act that we are considering today makes important improvements to that original bill and to those penalties and provisions.

Let me especially express my appreciation for Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Bill Pascrell, who has worked together with the Democrats on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Senate, and the majority, obviously, to make improvements.

I understand there were some continued concerns with the bill, and we certainly want to continue to work with interested parties to address those concerns.

Given the urgency of the epidemic at hand, I am glad that we are able to support what is in front of us today, which I believe is a strong and achievable measure in this legislation to at least address part of the opioid epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader said a couple of moments ago that $15 billion was spare change.

Let me tell you what he apparently means by spare change. It means cutting food assistance for working families and taking $7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program. I guess that is spare change.

The previous speaker just said he was alarmed at the prospect that on the precipice of borrowing we were now going to cut back on our borrowing capacity as it relates to savings. After the same political party borrowed $2.3 trillion over 10 years to pay for a tax cut for people at the top, the strongest in America.

Those are the priorities. The priority is: Let's cut taxes for the strongest and the wealthiest. And let's pay for it by taking money from people who need it most in America.

We have seen time and again they are more focused on the needs of the wealthiest and the well-connected. We should be addressing the challenges of the middle clas in this session and making sure that they have ample assistance.

Now they are after healthcare for children. Now they want to propose $7 billion for their healthcare plan. Let's be clear: that priority, as long as I have been in this Congress, has been taking care of the strongest and the most powerful at the very top.

On January 19, 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye to the country, there was a $5.6 trillion surplus. They cut taxes by $1.3 in 2001. They cut taxes again by another $1 trillion in 2003.

So there was $2.3 million worth of tax cuts, two wars, a million and half new veterans. The answer to that, of course, was: let's have more tax cuts. That is precisely what they did with their tax cut plan. There was $2.3 trillion borrowed to provide for a tax cut for people at the very top.

They call themselves conservatives. They pronounce that they are disciples of balanced budgets. It has been reckless spending that we have watched them embrace time and again, and this is but another example of that endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the students and advisors of Easthampton High School's `We The People' team for their hard work, dedication, and outstanding achievement. These individuals prevailed over a number of highly skilled competitors to earn first-place honors in the 2018 Massachusetts `We The People' academic contest at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate in Boston. They have accordingly earned the distinction of representing the Commonwealth in the national `We The People' competition this week in Washington, DC.

The annual 'We The People' competition is an extraordinary opportunity that brings young minds together to discuss and learn about issues of vital importance to today's world and our nation. Not only did the students of Easthampton High School's team display exemplary commitment, ability, and character in preparing for and winning the statewide competition in January, but since then they have worked even harder as they eagerly anticipate competing in the national competition. They have been preparing to testify at mock congressional hearings and demonstrate their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, issue statements on a variety of topics related to our country's political and historical heritage, and field complex questions from a number of expert judges. I am confident that they will find their experience valuable for years to come--whether that be as a result of the fundamental knowledge that they have learned or the vital skills that they have built.

The students have been led by their teacher Kelley Brown who has provided crucial guidance and instrumental mentorship. The outstanding work performed by her class is a testament to the value of quality teachers in the Massachusetts public school system. The victorious students include Charlotte Banigan-White, Tierney Boyle, Ryan-James Bragg, David Brakey, Vincent Catalano, Aidan Chappuis, Carly Detmers, Victoria Drejsa, Chantel Duda, Shane Gravel, Kristin Hartley, Quinn LaFountain, Ambera Mutevelic, Shane O'Donnell, Devon Owens-Heywood, Lucas Patton, David Hunter Pelkey, Carlie Raucher, Nicolas Soucy, Fernando Tenesaca, and Dillan Wilson. Additional advisors of the team include Timothy Wood, Stephen Linsky, Nancy Sykes, and Anuraj Shah.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again acknowledge Easthampton High School's `We The People' academic team for their superb dedication and accomplishments. Strong civic education is the foundation of our democracy and these inspiring students have exemplified the finest qualities of informed citizenship. I am proud of this group and I wish them all the best in their upcoming national competition as well as all their other future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House this morning to pay tribute to a close friend of mine, Monsignor George Farland, who is celebrating the 50th anniversary of his ordination as a Catholic priest.

On May 4, 1968, Monsignor Farland received his ministerial orders at Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel in my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts. I know because I was the CYO basketball coach at Sacred Heart upon his arrival.

For the next half century, he has been a source of inspiration and comfort to his faithful parishioners at Sacred Heart Church in Springfield. Every Sunday, he provides a strong spiritual message, frequently laced with a special grace and a sense of irony and good humor, but always a powerful message. We have watched and witnessed as he has rebuilt and sustained a vibrant parish in the life of its members.

Sacred Heart Church was built by immigrants, and to this day, it welcomes immigrants, as he frequently says in the opening phrases of his powerful homilies: ``No matter what your status or station in life, you are welcome in this church.''

He has found time to serve as a police chaplain for the Springfield Police Department and also a hospital chaplain in the Sisters of Providence Health System in Mercy Medical Center. He has surely reinvigorated the life of the church, and is a son of Hungry Hill, a graduate of Cathedral High School and Saint Anselm College.

His spiritual leadership in western Massachusetts has become, in fact, legendary. He has a well-deserved reputation for compassion, humility, and kindness. Again, the welcoming message of his inclusivity continues to deeply resonate with those who worship at Sacred Heart Church.

He leads his parishioners up and down that middle aisle, oftentimes in joy and happiness or in grief of the funeral, but he always does it with a special tolerance and grace.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States, I want to congratulate Monsignor George Farland for reaching this important milestone in his life, thank him for his decades of thoughtful ministry, and acknowledge the remarkable contributions he has made to the people of all walks of faith in the Diocese of Springfield in western Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I had a productive and informative meeting last Friday, April 13, with Manuel Espina, Guatemala's Ambassador to the United States. We discussed the strong economic relationship between our two countries and our cooperative efforts to address drug trafficking and terrorism. I was particularly pleased to learn that Guatemala has

taken strong efforts on border security, including by detaining 44 individuals with possible ties to ISIS who were traveling with false documents with the intention of using Guatemala as a transit point to reach the United States. I look forward to continuing working with my Guatemalan colleagues to strengthen the relationship between our two countries.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding.

The previous speaker said that we really shouldn't have to do this, and the answer is that we don't have to do this. Bill Clinton proved on four occasions that you can balance the budget. It has only been done five times since the end of World War II. So what we really should be calling this legislation that is in front of us today is the ``Jesse James Seeks Clemency Act.''

We are here because of their tax cuts: Invade Iraq, let's have a tax cut. Invade Afghanistan, let's have a tax cut. The tax cut is the answer to everything.

The last round, let's borrow $2.3 trillion over 10 years before the Federal Reserve Board, by the way, has a chance to raise interest rates three times this year, as they predicted, for the purpose of providing a tax cut.

Oh, by the way, how about that old song, ``Don't Worry Because Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves''? This is what we have heard here, and this is what has put us in this predicament that we are in: $20 trillion worth of debt.

Now, here is the caveat that they always attach to these arguments, by the way: If there is a Democratic President, you need to balance the budget. If there is a Republican President, you don't need to balance the budget.

Their spending priorities are keen. It is borrowed money to provide tax cuts for people at the very top, further concentrating wealth.

Let me give you some numbers here that I have paid a lot of attention to over the years.

On January 19, 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were staring at a $5.6 trillion surplus, four balanced budgets, and record economic growth, the greatest economic growth spurt in the history of America, and a surplus of, again, $5.6 trillion.

So what happened? We cut taxes over the objections of many of us in 2001 by $1.3 trillion. Then we had a recession where we were losing 800,000 jobs a month.

Oh, by the way, in 2003, we came back and cut taxes again here by $1 trillion, plus the bonus. Then they decided to do a repatriation tax holiday, and now they are here like this.

My father used to have a great line. He used to say: At least Jesse James had enough respect to wear a mask.

This is unbelievable that they would come in with a balanced budget amendment after what they have done repeatedly all of these years to wreck the budgets all under the guise of, if we simply cut taxes, everything will get better.

The reason that this deficit is ballooning is not because of an increase in spending. Revenue as a percent of gross domestic product remains roughly at 17 percent to 18 percent. That is the postwar norm-- except for the end of the Bush W. years when revenue as a percent of gross domestic product went to 15 cents on the dollar because of the tax cuts and, by the way, increased spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let me remind our Republican friends of this: the priorities have been wrong. We could have reached an accord on these issues. But today, to do this, to bring forth a balanced budget amendment, we are going to disturb the Constitution of the United States to maybe get them through the next round of congressional elections, because that is all this is about.

So the tax cuts are going to reduce revenue.

Here is the footnote that you might want to pay some attention to: 83 percent of this tax cut that they voted for--without one Democrat, incidentally, in the House supporting it--83 percent of the benefit is going to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in America.

Then they found time, by the way, to double the exemption on the estate tax. So we are taking the estate tax from $11 million to $22 million.

Remember this about the estate tax: The estate tax is not a tax on Conrad Hilton. The estate tax is a tax on Paris Hilton. My God, who could be against that?

When you think about how this has been pursued, it is all about concentrating more wealth at the very top for people who have said, ``We don't need

it.'' There wasn't anybody beating down our doors in the top percentile of wage earners in America saying, ``Cut my taxes.''

We could have reached an accord on the corporate rate. We could have done some things in a bipartisan manner to address some of these issues in making America competitive internationally. But, instead, they chose to do what they always do: Let's starve the Federal budget, and then say after we starve the Federal budget, ``Oh, by the way, we have got to cut Social Security.'' Let's starve the Federal budget of revenue and say, ``Oh, by the way, we have to cut Medicare''; and, oh, by the way, let's starve the Federal budget and say, ``We have got to get rid of Medicaid for people who need it.'' This is why we find ourselves with a $20 trillion debt.

I will take the Clinton years and the Obama years compared to what they gave us in terms of Federal revenue forecasts.

CBO accountants came back the other day and said: Let us tell you right now what is wrong. They gave us hardcore numbers about economic growth, and they gave us hardcore numbers about debt and deficits.

Do you know what the answer was? Let's not believe what they have to say. Let's not pay any attention to what they have to say because it doesn't square with the philosophy of tax cuts paying for themselves.

So the last point is, if you voted for the tax cuts and you voted for the omnibus spending bill on the Republican side--because I know no Democrat voted for the tax cut--today, when you come in, you ought to wear a mask when you cast your vote because Jesse James would be honored.

Mr. Speaker, the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625, showing the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, before the House for debate today includes tax provisions, including technical corrections to tax legislation enacted prior to 2017. These tax technical corrections are important to provide clarity to taxpayers and to the administration of the law. As Ways and Means Committee Chairman and Ranking Member, Kevin Brady and I asked the staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of this legislation. The technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind the tax provisions of this legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov. It is document JCX-6-18, Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625 (Rules Committee Print 115-66).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the President just said in the last few minutes that the most important part of this legislation is the corporate tax cuts.

Stop the nonsense that you are doing this for the middle class.

In the 20 hours that have elapsed, Mr. Speaker, since we last had this debate, we were promised a number of things. The only thing they left out was that this tax bill was going to stem the tides, take us to Mars tomorrow, and the Cleveland Browns were going to win the Super Bowl.

The certainty of what they are telling us--if the stockmarket goes up, then they did it. The stockmarket has been going up since March of 2009. They talk about economic growth. Economic growth has now proceeded for 88 straight months. They keep telling us the rocket is about to launch because of this tax bill.

Do you know what is great about this, Mr. Speaker?

Reporters outside are starting to ask: Are you going to help them out if all of these things don't occur in the way they have said they are going to occur?

I said: After the appropriate period of review.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the longest-serving member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who is an extraordinary man. Our friend is the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is a Vietnam veteran and a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a champion of any and all things Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, so in 1 month we have taken the entire revenue system of the United States without hearing from one expert witness, without having had one public hearing, without using any precedent, and we changed the entire tax system of the country, tilting it clearly to the people at the very top.

When they say, as they certainly will, ``We have been doing hearings for 5 years,'' we never had one hearing on this legislation. Not one. We did not seek testimony from one witness in the conference committee. We got to offer opening statements and no amendments. There was no chance for any input on our side.

More than anything else, this is a missed opportunity. This was a missed chance to take a system that we all know to have fallen into competitive failure across the globe. But instead, they decided to go it alone.

So here is the way you want to think of this, for those of you who are following this debate:

They are borrowing $2.3 trillion for the purpose of cutting the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 37 percent and calling that middle class tax relief;

They are doubling the exemption on the estate tax to $22 million and calling that middle class tax relief;

They are eliminating the alternative minimum tax for people at the very top and calling it middle class tax relief.

By the 10th year of this tax proposal, 83 percent of the benefit accrues to the people at the very top of our economic system. That is not in dispute.

They say things like: Well, in 5 years, we are going to correct this measure. Then they talked about the idea that somehow this was about simplicity. When you get into the phase-ins and the phaseouts, you are all going to pass out from trying to read this tax proposal.

The complexity they add to the system is unparalleled, all to secure a tax cut for people at the top.

So here we are in the holiday season, and they are telling us, by the way, that if we just borrow this money, everything is going to be fine.

What did they say about borrowing when Bill Clinton was President? What

did they say about borrowing when Barack Obama was President?

They lectured us, day in and day out, in an unyielding manner, even though the economic performance of Clinton and Obama outweighed the two Republican Presidents in between.

So here is the game plan for the holiday season. Do you know what the holiday hangover on your credit card is? People go out and use their credit cards, and they figure out all year how to try to pay for it.

It is going to take you more than 10 years to try to pay for this, all upon the spurious notion that they guarantee economic growth, as the President said, by the way, that is going to exceed 6 percent. That is 6 percent.

They are telling us that the stock market has gone up because of them, even though it has gone up since March of 2009. They are telling us now that this is going to spur unparalleled economic growth, even though the economy has been growing for 88 straight months, all on the credit card for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is the worst piece of legislation that has come from the House in the 29 years that I have served here, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what you are about to hear from our Republican friends for the next 30 minutes is the following: a mixture of theology and science fiction. And then they are going to take you to revisionist history.

This is the most regressive piece of tax legislation that has come from the Ways and Means Committee in the 25 years that I have been a member.

This is not about simplification. When you have a chance to look at the phase-ins and the phaseouts, you will be passed out by the time they get to the expiration dates.

They say it is about simplicity; it was going to be on a postcard. You are going to need to carry a billboard around with you to understand what is in this actual bill.

And here is the best part: when Secretary Mnuchin said, Mr. Speaker, that under no circumstances would people at the top get tax relief. Well, I guess if you are formerly in the 39.6 percent tax bracket, which is summarily lowered to 37 percent, that that is dressed up as no tax relief for people at the very top. But then again, to help out with their argument, then they double the exemption on the estate tax, which will go from $11 million to $22 million.

The people at the bottom in this, they are going to argue: Everybody gets a tax cut. Well, here is where we go to revised history.

In 2001, President Bush said everybody gets a tax cut. The Federal budget of $1.3 trillion included a tax cut for everybody. The people at the bottom got a hundred bucks, and the people at the top got hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is a creative replay of exactly what happened.

And then in 2003, they came back and cut taxes again for people at the very top and blew a huge hole in the Federal deficit, which had been estimated at the time, after Clinton left on January 19, 2001, to project surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Instead, the Federal deficit mounted to $6.1 trillion.

So here is the simplicity of their proposal today. They are borrowing $2.3 trillion to give a tax cut to people at the very top of American society. That is not in dispute.

In addition to borrowing the money, recall that the Federal Reserve Board said they are projecting, already, three increases next year in interest rates. We don't know what this is going to look like by the time they get done, but this, today, is more about ideology than it is about public policy

Think of it this way as well: This was done in 1 month. In 1 single month, the entire revenue system of the United States is being transformed.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.

Not one public hearing was held on this bill. And when they say today, ``Oh, we had 5 years of public hearings,'' we did not have one hearing on this bill--not one. No witness testimony was sought. No committee was convened for the purpose of a hearing. And then when we went to conference, we were all granted an opening statement, and we got to question the nonpartisan Director of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. Speaker, more than anything else today, this is a missed opportunity where both sides could have accomplished something great for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the longest serving member of the Ways and Means Committee, and a well-deserved 1 minute, I might add.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis, one of the great men of our times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the very capable legislator and Democratic whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished Vietnam veteran and a well- known and valued member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the former president of the State Senate and a well-informed member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a very capable member of the committee, and a champion of renewable energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a good friend, and a former member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a very knowledgeable Member from the city of Chicago and champion of all things Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a capable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the stock market has been going up since March of 2009, and we have had 88 straight months of economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is very successful.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), the former revenue commissioner of the State of California, who is going to tell us about the State and local tax deduction ending.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who will tell us about the great harm that this does to New York and to the island of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

So, in 1 month, we have taken the entire revenue system of the country without one public hearing, without any witness testimony, without the solicitation of one expert. ``We,'' meaning the Republican majority. They have decided to go forward with this reckless plan.

Contrast this with Reagan and O'Neill and Rostenkowski and Packwood in 1986.

When Gephardt and Bradley first offered their bill in 1982 on tax reform, 4 years ensued before the measure came to the floor for passage, and, in that time, 450 witnesses offered testimony. Every expert from every nook and cranny in America was invited to offer their vision of what a better tax system might look like. And those individuals--and I knew them all because I went to the committee when Mr. Rostenkowski was the chairman--saw that as the fabled achievement of their time in a bipartisan manner.

Do you know what else?

Secretary Reagan and Chief of Staff Jim Baker sat through the markups on that tax reform measure.

Now, Secretary Mnuchin, instead, has said, nobody at the top will get a tax cut. And then they cut the rate from 39.6 at the top to 37. Well, nobody at the top will get a tax cut.

We are going to double the exemption on this estate tax so that you might now keep $22 million rather than $11 million, without any formalization of taxation.

My friend, Mr. Brady--and he is my friend--he spoke before about the people's money.

Well, you know what the people's responsibility is?

A million new veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the people's responsibility.

When we talk about responsibility and the people's money, Medicare is the people's responsibility. Social Security is the people's responsibility.

As we celebrate the extension of life expectancy in America, Medicaid today now cares for people with dementia and Alzheimer's disease. That is the people's responsibility.

They have carefully taken theology and wed it to science fiction.

Remember what we heard around here all these years?

Don't worry, tax cuts pay for themselves. That was the offering in 2001, $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts.

Well, we get to 2003, another $1 trillion worth of tax cuts. By the way, there was time in between for a repatriation holiday, at 5\1/4\, all advertised on the basis of job creation, and layoffs ensued almost the next day.

This money is going to be used for stock buybacks and dividends. There will be little investment in this lost opportunity where we should have invested in community colleges and vocational education and apprenticeship programs.

Six million jobs in America go unanswered every single day because of a skills alignment problem and also the horror of what opiate addiction has done across the United States. It has sidelined 2 million people.

What they are telling us today is the following: We have got tax simplification. What happened to the postcard? As I said earlier, we are going to have to carry around a billboard for tax simplification to figure out what is in it. They keep talking about phase-ins and phaseouts. I am telling you, we will all be passed out by the time they get done with this. This is more complexity.

And wait until people have a chance over the next few weeks to sort through what is in this bill. But here is something you might give some thought to: the bottom quintile, you are going to get $60 a year. The second quintile, you are going to get $380 a year. The top 1 percent, they are going to get $51,000 a year. The top 0.1 percent, they are going to get $193,000 a year, all in the name of middle class tax relief.

As we proceed to the holiday, they are telling us this is their Christmas present. And you know what they are doing with it? It is going to be Christmas hangover debt, and they are putting it on the credit card and adding $2.3 trillion to the Federal debt.

Merry Christmas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this could be a long few days if they can't agree on a motion to go to conference. That is not exactly the most heightened controversy we have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the Ryan-McConnell tax package and in strong opposition to the Republican tax plan.

Behind me is a replica of the national debt clock. This clock was just reconfigured. New features have been added just in time for the Republicans to acknowledge that they are about to add $1 trillion to this national debt clock, which they tortured Democratic Presidents on for years about the debt.

So let me provide you with some historical perspective. In January of 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were looking at a $5.4 trillion surplus, four straight balanced budgets, and record economic growth. The CBO said that the surplus might even go beyond $5.6 trillion.

But what really happened during that period of time?

After the Bush administration left, we were staring at $6.1 trillion worth of debt.

So what happened?

In 2001, the Republican Party cut taxes by $1.3 trillion and said it was all about economic growth. Then they came back in 2003 and said: Well, the growth hasn't been substantial enough, so we are going to cut taxes by another $1 trillion, $2.3 trillion of tax cuts, and a repatriation tax holiday where the money is returned at 5.25 percent on the promise of economic growth and job creation; none of which happened.

So where are we tonight?

We are back to the same old pattern and playbook that they continue to utilize. They promised job growth. In a meeting with the President recently, he said he didn't understand why we couldn't have job growth of 4, 5, or 6 percent. I don't know an economist who thinks we are going to have 6 percent economic growth, but they use that as the linchpin, the excuse for a tax cut that is going to add $1 trillion to the budget deficits, all based on the following economic assumption: maybe.

Maybe we will have growth that will help us to pay down the debt. All of the mainstream economists say maybe a return of one-third on the tax cuts in terms of revenue. Joint Committee on Taxation, The Wharton School, the Tax Policy Center, moodys.com, they all say the same thing: None of this is going to happen.

So we are also back to a familiar argument that they hear, and I think you should pay some attention to this for the moment.

They will say things repeatedly like: It is the people's money. The people know what to do with it.

Well, let me say this as well tonight: It is the people's veterans hospitals; one million new veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan who are going to be in need of long-term care. That is the people's responsibility.

In addition, 10,000 baby boomers retire every single day in America. Social Security is part of their retirement system, even as it averages about $15,000 for American citizens.

We are going to live longer, and we herald that achievement regularly, but it is also going to mean more Alzheimer's and more dementia that families are going to have to reconcile, and they are going to come back and say at the right moment: Oh, because there is less revenue, we are going to have to have cuts in social spending.

So they are going to say at the right moment: Oh, we are going to have to now change the way we calculate Medicare and Social Security.

This is a missed opportunity above everything else. Everybody agrees on what is wrong with the Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, there was a chance here to do some investment in human capital: community colleges, vocational education, internship programs. The

Labor Department reported 3 weeks ago, 6 million jobs go unanswered in America every single day.

I hope tonight, as the Republicans confer, they can tell us where they are actually conferring because, between the paste and the bubble gum, they keep putting on a new dimension to their proposal.

This should be a debate that included both parties. Before I reserve my time, for the moment, I want to say this: We had a chance to really do something big. They have, unbelievably, proposed to take the entire revenue architecture of this country in 3 weeks without one hearing, without one witness. They are going to change it all, and the middle class is about to get it in the neck to take care of people at the top.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who announced this past weekend that he is going to leave this institution. He has served this institution with distinction and grace for a long period of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), a neighbor and a good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a particular champion of all renewable energy forms.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the leadership of the Democratic Party. I think he is going to tell us about what the elimination of the State and local tax deduction means to the people of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee. The gentleman is also a great champion of new markets tax credits and the historic tax credit which is eliminated in the Republican tax plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who is a great champion of the middle class and a Marshall Scholar.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who is a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is the former revenue commissioner of California and who knows something about revenue projections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is the assistant Democratic leader.

In reference to my friend, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Clyburn is a real champion of the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the best legislators in the House, the Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman forgets the difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years, as it relates to the deficits.

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

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this discussion back and forth tonight about tax relief for the middle class; and we have heard the other side say that you are going to get $1,189 for a family of four, I think, making $59,000 a year.

But what they don't say is that they are going to take away the State and local tax deduction; they are going to take away the ability of children to deduct interest payments on student debt; that they are going to shave back the mortgage interest deduction; get rid of the historic tax credit; that they are going to get rid of new markets tax credits.

And here is the best one of all: as champions of the middle class they are, they are going to repeal the estate tax.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is my friend, said that we need to stop talking about wealth.

Well, how about approaching it this way? We are wealthy and we are not going to take it anymore, because that is essentially what this argument is about.

When you look at the distribution tables as to who gets what in this tax proposal, the concentration of wealth at the very top is highlighted time and again.

When we talk about tax relief for the middle class, when we examine what this is about to do to California, to New York, to Massachusetts, and to Connecticut, to name, but a few of the States that are going to pay a penalty for this tax plan--

And I dispute fully what the chairman said about the Obama years. Fourteen million jobs were created during the Obama years. Twenty-three million jobs were created during the Clinton years. The day that George Bush left, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month in America. That is the reality.

When you look at economic growth during those years, the 2 percent that we look at was not enough. But it has now been almost 13 years when middle class people have not had a pay raise and, time and again, we have heard the preposterous argument--and, boy, did it get us into trouble--that tax cuts pay for themselves.

You cannot find a mainstream economist that will say that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Now you hear the repeated argument that, if we cut taxes and we add dynamic scoring, based upon what might occur, or maybe, or if, then we are told that this is going to alleviate slow productivity and slow growth in America, all based upon the premise of tax cuts.

You know what we should be doing tonight, Mr. Speaker?

We should be talking about investing in human capital. We should be talking about the 6 million jobs that go unanswered in America every single day. We should be talking about community colleges. We should be talking about the idea of apprenticeship programs and, yes, investing in vocational education. We should be also talking about, finally, what to do about the 2 million people in America who have opiate addictions and don't go to work every day. We should be concerned about the labor participation rate in America.

Instead, the answer always becomes the Holy Grail of Republican economics; cut taxes for the people at the very top, and plead the case that what you are really doing is for people in the middle class.

The alternative minimum tax is devoted to people at the top, and the idea of repealing the estate tax for so few people in America is outrageous.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize David Starr, the longtime president of the Republican Company in Springfield, Massachusetts for receiving the Massachusetts Governor's Award in the Humanities. A national figure in the field of journalism, David's influence and impact on the media and arts in western Massachusetts and beyond for more than seven decades makes him an ideal recipient for this prestigious honor. In my opinion, no one deserves this recognition more.

Throughout his extraordinary life, David has always been passionate about journalism and the newspaper business. His career began at age 12, when he started delivering the Long Island Press. Even then he was reading more than ten newspapers a day. At 17, he became one of the youngest editors of the Queen College newspaper in New York. After serving his country with distinction in the U.S. Army during World War II, David returned to journalism where he would begin his lifelong association with the Newhouse family. He did every job well and quickly rose through the ranks. The skill he displayed as a reporter, publisher, and eventually president, led him to have a successful career as the longest-serving news executive at the Advance Publications Newspaper Group, formerly known as Newhouse Publications. His leadership in the newsroom, particularly at the Springfield Republican, helped him win a well-deserved reputation as a giant in the industry.

I first met David in 1977, and few people have consistently done more to improve the quality of life in the Pioneer Valley. He has worked tirelessly to make western Massachusetts a better place to live, work, and raise a family. He was pivotal in the 1980s and 1990s in revitalizing downtown Springfield by encouraging the public and private sectors to work together for the progress of the city. David was a critical part of the city's renaissance. Successful projects like the Monarch Building, the Sheraton Hotel and One Financial Plaza all happened on his watch. He had a vision for our community and it was realized. Additionally, he was the founder of several organizations to promote economic and cultural development including Springfield Business Friends

of the Arts, the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts, and the Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts. His enthusiastic support of the Springfield Symphony and WGBY is legendary.

Mr. Speaker, David Starr has spent decades listening to people and writing their stories. He was a mentor to a generation of young reporters just starting their careers in journalism and seeking sound advice and guidance. His good work and philanthropy informed the people of western Massachusetts and helped make their lives better. With his lovely wife Peggy by his side, they remain a truly formidable team. For the past 40 years I have been proud to call David Starr my friend and honored to be a small part of his incredible journey. On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate him on receiving this important award in Humanities. It is a fitting tribute to a remarkable man.