Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the destruction that is taking place in America's healthcare system during these 10 months is unbelievable. They have eviscerated the National Institutes of Health. They have cut back on the Centers for Disease Control and billions of dollars for Medicaid for a tax cut for the wealthy. Wait till you see what is coming to America's hospitals after the next election. It is so contrived they waited until after the election to implement it.

Mr. Speaker, 24 million people are likely to lose health insurance if we

don't implement these tax credits as suggested. The emergency room is going to be back in full force now because this is where people will go for their healthcare.

All of this is taking place to justify a tax cut for people at the very top. Here is the real kicker: Our Republican colleagues of fiscal probity borrowed the money for the tax cuts.

In 2017, it was $2.4 trillion. In the last tax bill, almost $4 trillion is borrowed for a tax cut for wealthy people. Whatever happened to the fiscal soundness that the Republican Party used to lecture everybody on.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the numbers: 15 million people are about to be kicked off their health insurance because of the big, ugly law; 24 million Americans are going to pay higher premiums, in some cases, up to 75 percent.

I am in opposition to this Republican plan because they would rather shut down the government than bring costs down for the American people.

Everything costs more. Unemployment is on the rise, and it is only going to get worse because of their healthcare premiums rising by up to 75 percent.

Let's say it again: Republicans would rather shut down the government than bring down healthcare costs.

Two months ago, they found it possible to permanently extend tax cuts for the super wealthy and the biggest companies that were all scheduled to expire. They have turned their backs on the American people, but they found time once again to cut taxes for people at the very top.

My friend, the budget chairman, said before that Democrats have added to the debt. Is there anybody on their side right now that is willing to stand up and say that in 2017 they didn't borrow $2.3 trillion for their tax cut? That is what I thought.

Is there anybody willing to say that they didn't add $4 trillion to the debt with the last measure they passed called the big, ugly bill?

Trillions of dollars being borrowed for a tax cut, and the bill is so popular, what they did with that legislation, it is so popular, at the White House right now they are trying to figure out how to rebrand it. We have already branded

it. It is the big, ugly bill that is going to penalize middle-class Americans. We have the highest healthcare premium increases in 15 years. Prices are up. Unemployment is rising, and the Trump economy with their tariffs are failing the American people who need it the most.

This morning, Democrats are not going to be party to these attacks on the American people. We have a simple plan here. Let's extend these healthcare benefits. We can move on to the next legislative business in terms of the regular order. The American people know this morning Democrats have their backs, and we intend to defend their health insurance plans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable milestone in our Nation's history, the 50th anniversary of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site (NHS).

Established during the Revolutionary War in 1777 as the ``Arsenal at Springfield,'' the site was recommended to George Washington by General Henry Knox for its strategic location along the Connecticut River and its proximity to four major roads that connected to New York City, Boston, Albany, and Montreal. The Arsenal at Springfield played a critical role in the war effort, both manufacturing cartridges and gun carriages and storing muskets, cannons, and other weaponry.

In January 1787, the Armory was the site of Shays' Rebellion, an uprising led by American Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays in response to economic hardships faced by farmers after the Revolutionary War. Thousands of Shays' Regulators marched on the Springfield Armory, hoping to seize its weaponry and force a change of government. The rebellion directly influenced the delegates at the Constitutional Convention later that year, with James Madison citing it as a warning for the need for a stronger federal government.

The Springfield Armory was officially established by George Washington in 1794 and played an essential role in shaping America's military and industrial strength. For nearly two centuries, the Armory provided the tools necessary to defend our Nation and served as a hub of innovation and craftsmanship. In 1974, the site was officially designated a National Historic Site and was entrusted to the stewardship of the National Park Service.

Once the home of our Nation's first armory, the Springfield Armory National Historic Site is now home to the world's largest historic U.S. military small arms collection, commemorating the innovative craftsmanship and ingenuity that enabled the production of the most superior firearms for nearly two centuries. Thousands of visitors come every year to not only marvel at this collection, but also learn about the region's rich history and its critical role in the founding of our Nation.

On Saturday, August 16, 2025, the Springfield Armory NHS will host a community-wide celebration on the scenic grounds of the Springfield Armory and Springfield Technical Community College to mark this historic occasion. This free, family-friendly festival will honor five decades of preserving the rich military, industrial, and social legacy of the Armory.

I commend the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, Superintendent Fellner and her team, and our entire western Massachusetts community for honoring the past and enriching the present. Here's to another fifty years of education, inspiration, and connection through this treasured historic landmark.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) in paying tribute to Eric Tarpinian-Jachym of Granby, Massachusetts, who tragically lost his life here in Washington.

Eric was a rising senior at the University of Massachusetts, a proud graduate of Granby Public Schools, and a young man of great promise. He came to Capitol Hill eager to learn, contribute, and serve the people and this great institution, only motivated by idealism and a commitment to public service. Through his determination and intellect, he accomplished all of that.

Those who were close to Eric speak of his thoughtfulness, curiosity, and noteworthy commitment to learning about his government. He loved archery, fishing, and the great outdoors, but surely it will be his character that is remembered most.

To his parents, Tamara and Robert; his siblings, Angela and Jeremy; and all who loved him, including his best buddy Hunter, our deepest condolences on behalf of the United States of America. May his memory be a blessing for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we might have visited a lot of places. Tonight, or this morning, I should say, why don't we visit reality. Here is the reality because we are going to talk about facts for the next 15 minutes on our side.

One thing you can understand very clearly is that the Republicans in the House surrendered to the Republicans in the Senate. Once again, when the going got tough, both institutions surrendered to the President.

This bill became worse along the way when it was already a pretty bad product. In terms of expertise, let's reject what the Congressional Budget Office says. Let's reject what the Joint Committee on Taxation might have to say. Of course, when the going gets tough, let's blame the Federal Reserve Board because of interest rates.

Under this bill, here is a fact, Mr. Speaker: If you made $1 million last year, you are going to make an additional $96,000 in the next tax- filing season. That is a fact. Yet, here is the real fact and the scam that is being presented to the American people with this legislation: If you made under $50,000 last year, you are going to get 68 cents a day in terms of your tax relief. The Senate was too generous. They were at 73 cents, so the House Republicans wanted to go back to 68 cents.

Here is the real kicker: For a party that has preached fiscal rectitude that I have listened to all of my years here--all of my years here--voting for the balanced budget amendment, taking up all of these pursuits in terms of fiscal rectitude, they are borrowing an additional $5 trillion to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest amongst us.

Mr. Speaker, $5 trillion is being added to the debt. I call attention to that because they are taking away health insurance for poor people. Hospitals are going to suffer. Medicare is going to be cut. The child credit will leave out the poorest, and seniors are threatened with losing many of the necessities of everyday life. SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, and the ACA are all about to be gutted in the name of a tax cut for the wealthiest amongst us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlewoman that in 2017, the Republican Party borrowed $2.3 trillion for that tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I can't wait for the Republican Party to meet that waitress who is making $32,000 a year and tell her in this tax bill the Republican Party just gave her 68 cents more a day because that is the reality of what this tax bill is about.

We could also say in the next breath, if you made a million dollars last year, you are going to get $96,000. This is a fact-free argument. They are making this argument that the person at the bottom is going to do well in contrast to the person at the top. There is simply no factual basis to that.

By the way, the party of fiscal rectitude is borrowing $5 trillion to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest amongst us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say the leader has done his part.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the passing of our esteemed colleague and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Charles B. ``Charlie'' Rangel.

Mr. Rangel served in this House of Representatives for 46 years. He was talented, hilarious to talk to in private and public moments, and an individual who, time and again, offered broad influence on important legislation that passed through this House and eventually became law, including the Affordable Care Act while he was chairman of the Committee.

He was one of the longest serving Members of Congress, but he was also a legislative titan in the sense that 40 bills or resolutions that became law were part of his rich legacy.

He was a friend, ally, and acolyte of the late Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill. He was also a dedicated member of the American military and, in fact, was wounded at the Yalu River during the Korean conflict.

His story is that of millions of Americans who, against extraordinary odds, succeeded. Educated by a family from Springfield, Massachusetts, the Putnams, he made his way through NYU and St. John's Law School and became a former assistant district attorney as well as a Member of this House and an assemblyman. He defeated Adam Clayton Powell in a very big upset, and 46 years later, he retired from this institution.

Amongst the most pleasant memories I have of Mr. Rangel, who was a great friend and mentor to me, and I stayed in touch with him many years after he had decided to retire, was his strong sense of independence.

I think for a young man growing up in the thirties and forties in Harlem, there must have been many serious challenges, but he always finished his sentences after a legislative task had been accomplished by saying and referencing ``this great country of ours.''

After the Yalu River, he wrote a very important book, ``And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since.'' The humor was clear to all of us as it was delivered with that raspy voice time and again. I know in reference to me it was always ``Richard'' and we knew what he meant.

One of my last get-togethers with Chairman Rangel was in New York City. I was reminded of that sense of independence as we had a seminar that was conducted by the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, and I called to make sure that this former alum would attend.

I asked if we could do anything, like providing him with transportation. He said no. In his early nineties, he would make his way there to the restaurant on his own.

At the end of the night, knowing that he clearly had lost a step in terms of some of that independence as he tried to navigate the staircase going up, I said: Charlie, can I help you with the staircase? And he said: No, you can't.

That was the Charlie Rangel we knew. It wasn't insolence. It was that sense of independence that he always maintained and kept.

I can't tell you how many nights in the Ways and Means Committee when Mr. Rangel would hold forth about the stories of people he had met along the way. The stories were always rather colorful and ended with a laugh. Those very people are part of the strong personalities that make up the institution of the House of Representatives, and he certainly was one of them.

He came from a time very different than the one that we find ourselves in now. It had nothing to do with performative politics and certainly nothing to do with social media. He found a little bit of comfort in taking on his most severe critics on cable TV. He was one of those Members of Congress who would accept an invitation from people who had been harshly critical of him to define his positions.

Charlie Rangel was one of those guys that changed this institution for the better and forever. I still recall those discussions he had as we related conversations to the Chinese Government, to his own upward mobility, to the legislation that he paved the way for. Charlie Rangel always cared about the people in Harlem, and Charlie Rangel always cared about the American people and the United States of America, as well.

He redefined what was possible. He shepherded much of the great legislation that we continue to enjoy today in America, but I will call attention to those statements that he made, Mr. Speaker, by always finishing with what a great country we live in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Ed Donnella, originally from Springfield, Massachusetts, who recently was honored by the Organization of American Historians (OAH) as the winner of the prestigious 2025 Mary K. Bonstell Teacher of the Year Award. He currently is a U.S. History and Government teacher at Gonzaga High School in Washington, D.C.

The award was given at the OAH annual meeting last April in Chicago and was presented by Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian David Blight. The citation reads in part: ``Mr. Donnellan has worked diligently to expand the teaching of history regarding slavery and social justice issues. He created pioneering student-led research in the role of Gonzaga College High School's history with slavery, leading seminars and presentations over this material at both local and national venues.''

Ed Donnellan grew up in Springfield, Massachusetts and graduated from the University of Massachusetts and Springfield College where he studied history. He has been teaching high school for thirty-nine years. Teaching the history of slavery took on greater meaning when Ed led a group of Gonzaga students on a three-year journey to research Gonzaga's historical ties with slavery. Working at the Georgetown University archives, the students read 19th century financial records that showed the school was built with profits from Jesuit run slave plantation in Southern Maryland. The students also identified five enslaved persons who worked at the school. Reckoning with this history has been challenging and continues to this day.

As a teacher for over forty years, including U.S. History, I understand the complex issue of teaching ``difficult histories.'' It is vital that students get a full picture of the American experience; history that we are proud of and history that is hard to hear. Learning the challenging parts of our history ensures that future generations can learn from mistakes of the previous. That is why it is important to recognize educators like Ed Donnellan and encourage others to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Ed Donnellan and wish him continued success in educating students on America's past.

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

Mr. Speaker, this big, beautiful bill must be so beautiful that we are debating it at a quarter past 4 in the morning to avoid the scrutiny of the public for a piece of legislation that was authored just hours ago.

I would challenge some Members on the other side to take an exam on what was added to this legislation before we have a chance to vet it.

The chairman, my friend, said how challenging his modest youth was. I share a similar story. Do you know what? We can both thank Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal for those opportunities.

When the chairman was talking about growth rates, I thought he was going to say bring back Bill Clinton because that is where those growth rates came from.

The cat is out of the bag: $2.3 trillion was borrowed in 2017 to pay for a tax cut that overwhelmingly went to people at the very top.

What are we about to do this evening, or this morning, or last night? We are going to borrow $4 trillion--and with interest payments over the next 10 years, $5 trillion--to justify a tax cut for the billionaire class. That is what this is about.

As the gentleman from Kentucky, no raving liberal, said, you are talking about adding $30 trillion to the debt over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, 14 million people are going to lose their health insurance to pay for this tax cut for wealthy people. We gut Medicaid, food assistance, childcare, and healthcare.

Do you know what? Everybody in this Chamber, every Member of this House, should call their local hospitals and ask them to lay out the formula for how their pay works in terms of reimbursements. Overwhelmingly, it is almost two-thirds for Medicare and Medicaid. This is going to lead, particularly in red States, to closures.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you some numbers that I think are really intriguing, despite the argument that we heard from the other side about how all of this money is going to go to people at the lower end. Their slogan ought to be: We are rich, and we are not going to take it anymore. That is where this argument is headed.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you some numbers. If you made a million dollars last year, you are going to get $81,000 of tax relief. If you made less than $50,000--guess what?--you are not quite so lucky, but do you know what? A dollar a day goes a long way. That is where the numbers land.

When they talk about broken promises, I listened to a Republican tonight on TV, a younger guy. He said that they reject what CBO has had to say.

In the Ways and Means Committee and in the tax world, this is scripture. That is how important it is. We might not like the answers we get from time to time and might be upset about it, but we know that the people who delivered it are not Democrats, not Republicans. They are economists, tax attorneys, and CPAs.

Let me just remind everybody on the Republican side about a couple of other things that I think are really important. Most of them supported postal reform; that cost money. Republicans voted for the CHIPS Act; that cost money. They voted for the infrastructure bill; that cost money. Thirty of them voted for the Butch Lewis Act; that cost money. How about the PACT Act for our veterans? That cost money.

The Inflation Reduction Act, despite their efforts to deride it, their Members are going to groundbreakings and taking advantage of it right now. One piece of testimony the other night in the committee said that there is one congressional district that is receiving $6 billion of investment. Boy, I would hate to explain that to my constituents that I was sending $6 billion back to Washington.

I call attention to this because they supported these issues along the way, and now they want an excuse to cut taxes for the people at the very top. That is where these cuts are going, to the people at the very top. That is not to be denied.

I hope as we listen in the next few minutes, we hear the contrast that we would offer if we were in the majority, so we could agree tonight on the very basic fact that I am going to offer. We could agree with 98 percent of the tax legislation if they kept the number at $400,000 and fewer. People under $400,000 would keep their tax cuts, and people at the top would go to 39.6. Those are Clinton-Obama rates, and they worked fine for the country.

We all have some degree of honor to keep here. How about those soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq? They deserve our care. They are closing veterans service organizations. I just did a townhall with veterans. They are astounded by what is happening already.

I am looking forward to the next 25 minutes of debate on this side and the next 25 minutes of debate on the other side because they are trying to sell Americans, at 4:22 in the morning, a bad piece of legislation.

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a recipient of the Purple Heart, who knows something about veteran issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has worked in the adoption space and is a model for America.

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

I always do, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), whose hospitals I have visited.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who really knows something about the child credit.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlewoman that the SALT deduction that we offered in our tax bill on a secret ballot would have gotten all the Republicans from New York, New Jersey, and California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who nobody has ever walked away from saying that they think she is undecided.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), the ranking member of the Oversight Committee and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), who really knows something about the bond market.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois

(Mr. Schneider), a very thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I might say that the former President was writing historic legislation in the Oval Office and at least signing the products that came from these committees.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), a very important member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), who is a terrific advocate for the people of his constituency.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the Democratic leader, I want to talk a little bit about what I began with.

First of all, let me just say as a courtesy and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee for 33 years, this debate should be taking place during the day. I know the Members on the other side feel the same way.

There is no reason at 10 minutes after 5 o'clock in the morning to debate a bill of this consequence. It is as simple as that. These were legislative courtesies that we once extended to each other. There is no reason for it to play out at a time when most Americans can't dial in to hear the debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is no getting away from the fact that the Republican Party, the party of fiscal rectitude, the party that has lectured us for decades on spending patterns, is about to borrow $4 trillion for a tax cut that is overwhelmingly going to go to people at the very top including the billionaire class.

What is troubling about it is that if we look back at these tax cuts, as I noted, it is $10 trillion of tax cuts from 2001 to this moment. In 2017, it is borrowed money. It is $2.3 trillion of borrowed money.

This is $4 trillion. When we are done paying the interest on it over the next 5 years, as the bond market reminded us again today, it is closer to $5 trillion, and the Republicans are the party of fiscal rectitude.

I call attention, again, to this because we would say that if you kept these tax cuts for people under $400,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, then you would get a buy-in from us. We are okay with that. We object to the idea that people who are about to derive the biggest benefit don't need it, and in most instances, they weren't asking for it as well.

The theology that tax cuts pay for themselves is nonsense. We have heard that forever, but it is that continued effort that Republicans have to suggest that no matter what happens, a tax cut should be the most important consideration.

There were two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, two tax cuts during those

years? During the years of the collapse of Wall Street, there were $2.3 trillion of tax cuts?

Ronald Reagan had the good sense when he found out what the tax cuts meant against spending cuts, he reversed the position during that time.

However, Mr. Speaker, the current Republican Party subscribes to this notion that you can be for infrastructure--you can take defense spending now that is heading over $1 trillion, you can vote for the infrastructure bill, you can vote for the CHIPS Act, you can vote for postal reform--and, yes, 30 Members voted on that side for the Butch Lewis Act--and you can do all these things and simultaneously cut taxes.

No, Mr. Speaker, you can't, and we know that.

We are in a position to argue, I think, with great force for the American people because I know what happened. For all their talk about what happened in the tax cut of 2017, we easily won the House the next year.

The American people don't buy this. That is because they know where these tax cuts are going. They are intended to help people at the top when it is really the people at the bottom and in the middle who need help.

Hospitals are going to close. Children are going to go hungry, and healthcare is going to be denied, but the billionaire class is going to pick up a considerable number of dollars.

Again, the number that I cited earlier, Mr. Speaker, was that if you make $1 million, then you will pick up 90,000 additional dollars. That is almost 10 percent. If you make under $50,000, Mr. Speaker, you are getting $1 a day? Is that what this tax package means?

Defeat this bill. Send it back to the Ways and Means Committee. Compel that committee to negotiate. We can come up with a plan where the middle class would get the tax cuts, and then we would address subsequently the debt that is plaguing this Nation.

This legislation will take us to $40 trillion worth of debt, and they are going to lecture us on debt?

It is the old story: On Monday they blame us for debt, and on Tuesday they add $4 trillion to it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve what I have remaining of time unfinished, but I will yield at the appropriate moment to the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the fair manner in which you have done this, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to rebut, Mr. Speaker, however, our tax bill had an $80,000 cap on SALT, and it passed the House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, the majority leader, everybody on this side was cheering for the success of that young man defeating cancer. The way we are going to defeat cancer is not to cut

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposal that we are hearing from the other side is reckless and irresponsible.

What they are saying is what they usually say: Let's complain about the size of the national debt and then borrow the money for tax cuts to go to people at the very top.

I defy anybody on this side to say right now that that is not what happened in 2017. They borrowed $2.3 trillion, gave a tax cut to the wealthiest amongst us, and then complained about Biden running up the national debt.

The arithmetic doesn't work on this. The messaging might remain consistent, but what I have just said is entirely accurate. The money was borrowed in 2017. Then, when you look at tax distribution tables, just take a look at who got the money. The tax cut for the person at the top was 288 times what it was for the person making less than $50,000 a year.

These are the numbers. They don't lie. The messaging that comes from the other side would have you believe that they are on top of defending Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. They are threatening all three with these proposals.

I have not seen anything in my time like this, making massive cuts to Medicaid, closing Social Security offices, threatening Medicare, laying off veterans at veteran services offices, and then providing a tax cut to those in billionaire heaven down in the Cabinet.

Let's have an honest discussion between the two parties about fiscal policy.

Mr. Chair, well, the looting is underway. Our colleagues are running the same failed playbook of trickle-down handouts. My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) said the family of four is going to get $1,700. Look at the tax distribution tables and see what billionaires are going to get in this. That is the real issue that is in front of us on this occasion. Let me go to another point that I think is fascinating. DOGE is rummaging through your private records even as we speak.

How about the following? Imagine what the Republican reaction would have been if Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden said, we are going to borrow $4 trillion more for these tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us?

Don't kid yourself. Medicaid--71 million Americans--Medicare, Social Security, the American people depend upon these programs.

I am stunned that Republicans would borrow $4 billion to justify tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us. By the way, these people aren't even asking for those tax cuts. The cuts will affect every part of American life, including those who need basic sustenance every day. We have the $4 trillion, but look at the alignment: $1.23 trillion here for cuts, but $1.2 trillion for tax cuts. Oh, let me figure that one out. They are going to cut Medicaid to justify what it is that they want to do.

There is no reason why billionaires should be getting a massive tax cut. It is totally unnecessary. In the end, that is what this legislation is about, despite their protestations. It provides $1,700 for a family of four, but tens of millions of dollars for billionaires. That is where these tax cuts are going.

I want you also to understand this: The people are watching. We are going to defend Medicare and Medicaid, and we are going to defend all of these entities that have made a difference in American life for average people every single day.

Let me close on this note: My father had a great saying. He used to say: Jesse James at least had the respect to wear a mask. They should be wearing masks for what they are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Harry L. Chandler--a revered veteran, esteemed member of our community in western Massachusetts, and a national hero.

Harry L. Chandler was born on March 6, 1921, in Holyoke, Massachusetts, to Louis and Ida Cohen. From an early age, Harry demonstrated a love for service and commitment to his community. He attended Holyoke Public Schools, leaving just short of graduation in

1939 to enlist in the United States Navy. Sworn into the Navy in July 1940, Harry chose to become a Corpsman, a role that perfectly melded with his gentle, caring nature.

On December 7, 1941, Harry witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbor. His bravery and service during that day, rescuing fellow sailors amidst chaos, stands as a testament to his courage and dedication. Throughout World War II, Harry served in various capacities and earned numerous commendations, including the Asiatic-Pacific Area Theater Medal with two stars, the WWII Victory Medal, and the Naval Reserve Meritorious Service Medal. He retired as a Senior Chief (HMCS) in 1981 after 40 years of service to the United States Navy and Naval Reserve.

Beyond his military service, Harry was a successful businessman, co- owning Highland Upholstery Co. in Holyoke, Massachusetts, with his brother Martin. He was a respected member of many fraternal organizations, including the Mount Tom Lodge of Masons, the Melha Shriners Hospital, and the Submarine Veterans of WWII.

Harry was a devoted husband to Anna McMahon, and together they raised a loving family. He is predeceased by his beloved wife Anna, daughter Patricia Russotto, sisters Rose Hendel and Eve Salwitz, brother Martin Cohen, and long-time companion Muriel O`Conner. He is survived by his daughters Kathleen Fahey and Carole Anne Cowles, his eight grandchildren, 17 great-grandchildren, and five great-great- grandchildren. His life was a testament to love, dedication, and service.

Harry Chandler emulated what it meant to be a part of the Greatest Generation--selflessly serving his Nation without hesitation and without want for recognition. His actions on that fateful day on December 7, 1941, are forever etched in our Nation's history. The heroics he demonstrated--rescuing fellow sailors while witnessing the tragic fate of the USS Arizona and USS Utah--are a stark reminder of the price he and his fellow servicemembers paid to protect our freedom. His legacy is an inspiration to us all and will live on for eternity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing Harry L. Chandler, not only as a veteran of World War II, but as a pillar of strength, resilience, and humility. His legacy is an inspiration to us all and will undoubtedly continue to influence our community for generations to come.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family during this difficult time. I join a grateful Nation in mourning the loss of Harry Chandler-- a true American hero.

Mr. Speaker, we are in favor of every request that you asked for. These were modest agreements that were reached and rendered by both parties in an honest and public agreement.

The Speaker of the House broke his word. That is why we are here.

To the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), who just spoke: I have been here for a long time. You have never won a government shutdown, and you won't win this one, either.

Your currency in this institution is your word. We reached an agreement. We came to modest achievements, and a tweet changed all of it?

Can you imagine what the next 2 years are going to be like if every time the Congress works its will and then there is a tweet from an individual, who has no official portfolio, threatening Members on the Republican side with a primary, and they succumb?

This institution has a separate responsibility based upon the separation of powers. Members of Congress don't serve under Presidents of the United States. It is called the national principle.

I am in favor of aid to North Carolina. I am in support of aid to the farmers in Missouri. We come to the aid of the American family at moments like this.

You walked away from your word. You walked away from an agreement. That is what we are bothered by: a simple suggestion from the President-elect that you ought to abandon that principle.

This is what this is about. This is about trying to raise the debt ceiling to disguise a big tax cut that they want to offer later on.

In December of 2017, the TCJA was rendered, and my friends, particularly the ones who have been here for a while, know what I am about to say is true. You borrowed the money, $2.3 trillion, for a tax cut for wealthy people. When you see the distribution tables, you know who got what.

We are trying to avert a government shutdown, but we are also trying to subscribe to the basic principle as outlined earlier. We reached an agreement. It was honorable. It came to the aid of everything you have asked for, and then you walk away from it?

What about your word going forward here? What about the currency that I noted a moment ago?

I tell you: You cannot win a government shutdown, and you won't win this one either.

We need to return to the original agreement and stick with it.

The last word here I am going to offer: The Speaker of the House needed to keep his word on this legislation and stick with it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to include in the record the obituary of Private First Class (PFC) Bernard Calvi of North Adams, Massachusetts. 82 years after he passed away as a prisoner of war in the Philippines, modern technology was finally able to identify his remains and return him home.

As the family and community are finally able to honor PFC Calvi in North Adams, I want to personally offer my thanks for his service and sacrifice on behalf of a very grateful Nation.

PFC Calvi Obituary

Private First Class Bernard Joseph Calvi, of the US Army

Air Forces, died on July 16, 1942 at the Cabanatuan Prisoner

of War Camp in the Philippines, where he was interned as a

Prisoner of War by Japanese forces during World War II. He

was born in North Adams on March 3, 1919, son of the late

Joseph and Lena (Cantone) Calvi. He attended North Adams

schools and graduated from Drury High School with the Class

of 1936. While at Drury, he was a standout member of the

Baseball and Football teams

Pfc. Calvi entered the US Army on September 12, 1940, and

was serving with the 17th Pursuit Squadron, 24th Pursuit

Group of the Army Air Forces in the Philippines when the

United States entered World War II. During the battle for the

Philippines, he was wounded at least once but returned to

full duty as an Infantryman as there were no airplane's left

operational. When Bataan fell to Japanese forces in 1942, he

was taken prisoner and forced to take part in the infamous

65-mile Bataan Death March into captivity. After four months

of captivity in deplorable conditions, he succumbed to

Starvation, Malaria, and loss of hope. Following the efforts

of his family and the US Army over many decades, and with

advances in identification technology, Pfc. Calvi is finally

returning home, 82 years after his death.

He is survived by his nephew, Bruce P. Calvi and his wife,

Joan (Titegens) Calvi, of Clarksburg; a cousin, Sylvia

Keehnle, of Pittsfield, great nieces and nephews, including

Springfield Fire Commissioner Bernard J. Calvi and his wife

Carrie of Springfield, Jennifer Belisle and her husband Bruce

of Stamford, VT and Jeffrey Calvi and his spouse Chris

Schaper of Bridgeport, CT; and great grandnephew and nieces

Elijah Calvi, Lucia Calvi, Ashlyn Belisle and Camryn Belisle.

He was predeceased by brothers and sisters-in-law, Raymond

Calvi and his wife, Pauline, Atty. Julius Calvi and his wife,

Mary Ann, and Joseph Calvi, who died in infancy.

A Funeral Mass will be celebrated on Tuesday, December 10th

at 12 Noon in St. Elizabeth of Hungary Church, 70 Marshall

St. North Adams. Burial with full military honors will follow

in the family lot in Southview Cemetery, North Adams. A

calling hour will be held IN ST. ELIZABETH CHURCH on Tuesday

from 10:30 AM until 11:30 AM, directly before the Mass. The

PACIOREK FUNERAL HOME, Adams, is assisting with arrangements.

To leave a message for the Calvi family, please go online to

www.paciorekfuneral.com.

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Robert Caro's ``The Power Broker.''

As one of the great literary accomplishments over the last five decades, the ``The Power Broker'' is more than a biography of Robert Moses.

It explores how Moses reshaped New York City, and it is a first-class lesson for anyone interested in policy and politics.

Much like Moses and his work in New York City, Caro's work has transcended generations. I use this book as a guest lecturer at Western New England University, and it references the literary masterpiece that we all have come to love.

Caro's book is a reminder of the responsibility that comes with power and the need for accountability with Democratic institutions.

As we reflect on this seminal work, let us remind ourselves of the challenges we face today, reflecting upon those who wield power in our society and how it affects the lives of everyday citizens.

Let's commit ourselves to the principles of fairness, transparency, and equity, principles that underscore democracy by and of the people. What a favor Robert Moses has done to American history.

I congratulate Mr. Caro on the occasion of the semicentennial of ``The Power Broker,'' and ask him to please finish the Lyndon Johnson series.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 200th anniversary of The Republican newspaper in Springfield, Massachusetts.

For 200 years, The Springfield Republican has been the standard for journalistic excellence in western Massachusetts and throughout the nation. Since its founding by the Bowles family in 1824, the paper has been in continuous circulation for two centuries--a feat that few publications can attest to.

Over the course of my career in public life, I have had the privilege of working with publishers who navigated the paper through changes that have transformed how we receive the news. This includes the likes of David Starr, Larry McDermott, and most recently George Arwady. All have played a prominent role in the newspaper's success in an ever-changing world.

I've also had the pleasure of working with exemplary editors, including Dick Garvey, Wayne Phaneuf, and Cynthia Simison. Now, Larry Parnass continues their legacy. Their commitment to journalistic integrity has upheld the newspaper's reputation as an outlet for reliable reporting. Chronicling the triumphs and challenges that have shaped our communities with sincerity and respect, they have made The Republican a generational household name.

The paper's story started with two things: a flat-bottomed barge and a printing press. Samuel Bowles and his wife made their way up the Connecticut River and settled in Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1824, Bowles founded The Republican, and the rest is history.

From its founding, The Republican prided itself on being a paper that delivered accurate news, while never shying away from discussing controversial topics. Samuel Bowles III was quick to realign the newspaper with the newly formed Republican party and was a strong proponent of the anti-slavery movement. It was that commitment to adaptability and foresight that earned Bowles, and subsequently the Republican, the admiration of a national audience--including President Lincoln.

On April 14, 1865, after a private meeting with The Springfield Republican's Washington correspondent George Ashmun, President Lincoln invited Ashmun to attend the theater with

him and Mrs. Lincoln. Ashmun declined, and Lincoln subsequently wrote a note that read, ``Allow Mr. Ashmun and friend to come in at 9 A.M. tomorrow. A. Lincoln. April 14, 1865.''

Later that evening, President Lincoln was assassinated. His note inviting Mr. Ashmun to the White House the following day would be Lincoln's last written words.

I call attention to this because it speaks not only to The Republican's involvement in one of the most consequential moments in American history, but also to the paper's constant pursuit of informing its audience of stories throughout the nation and around the world. Over the course of its 200-year history, The Springfield Republican has reported on a Civil War, two world wars, and conflicts across the globe; national triumphs like putting the first man on the moon and the invention of the internet; landmark legislative achievements like giving women the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment, the genius of Mr. Roosevelt's Social Security Act, and Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965; tragedies like the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Republican has been there through it all.

And while The Republican was there for each and every one of these stories of national and international significance, they have continued to prioritize the reporting of local stories. Or, as they have coined it, ``bringing home the news.'' For the last 200 years, The Springfield Republican has documented the triumphs and tribulations of this region, one filled with a rich history unlike any other; one whose history played a fundamental role in the founding of our Nation and its basic principles, including freedom of the press.

Whether it was covering visits by fifteen U.S. Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech at Springfield College, or foreign dignitaries visiting from around the world, The Springfield Republican was there.

Whether it was the 40 world championships won by Boston's four major sports teams, the invention of basketball by James Naismith, Dr. J's career with UMass basketball, Springfield's own Tim Daggett and his gold medal victory at the 1984 Olympics, or the countless high school athletes who have achieved All-Western Massachusetts honors, The Springfield Republican was there.

When we were ravaged by natural disasters, including the tornado in 2011, The Springfield Republican was there.

When we rebuilt our city and embarked on a renaissance that continues to take place right before our eyes, highlighted by the redevelopment of Springfield Union Station, the reinvigoration of our city's downtown, and transforming centuries-old buildings into state-of-the- art housing, The Springfield Republican was there.

In an ever-changing society, The Republican has endured a constantly transforming media market. In a time where social media dominates our nation's discourse, and misinformation and disinformation run rampant, we can continue to count on The Republican for their commitment to constant objectivity. On the occasion of their bicentennial, I am grateful for their unwavering loyalty to the people of this region.

I think Dave Starr said it best in his column published on October 24, 1999, when the newspaper celebrated its 175th anniversary. Dave wrote, ``Good newspapers like the Republican and the Union News live on because they offer a commodity that is worth the price. It's not just the news and the ads, the television listings and the sports pages, the comics and the crossword puzzles. They are important, but they are just part of what is in a good newspaper.''

He continued, ``A good newspaper is the embodiment of a community's hopes and dreams, its yearnings and its aspirations. It is the voice of the public it serves. It is the mirror of its community. And equally important, it is the public's guardian against dark forces that would erode or even destroy the people's rights and freedoms.''

As we celebrate The Republican's 200th anniversary, we thank all those who have played and continue to play a part in upholding the paper's mission of bringing home the news--news that embodies our community here in the Pioneer Valley and promotes the tenets of a free press.

The Springfield Republican has been there, and they will continue to be there for generations to come. Congratulations from the United States of America.