Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, but, most importantly, it is a missed opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking the proposal of the Republican Party today and the financial architecture of our revenue system, based on their request, to the casino.

Their argument is premised on one thing today, and one thing only. Maybe. But what about maybe not?

This could have been done between the two parties, as we requested and wanted to do.

In 1986, 450 witnesses offered testimony on tax reform, thirty hearings were held, and the Secretary of the Treasury attended most of them. The two parties found commonality in reaching an accord that was well received by the American people.

What we are being asked to do here today is to raise taxes on 36 million middle class Americans. The previous speaker, my friend from California, a quarter of the households in his district claim the State and local tax deduction, with an average of $10,000 per family. $10,000. So they are going to tell you today that they are giving you this and they are giving you that.

Take a look at the distribution tables. That is the most certain opportunity for people to examine precisely what is in this legislation.

A gentleman earlier this morning was heralding Alzheimer's month. They give Alzheimer's a tax during Alzheimer's month. For those who stay together with loved ones for as long as they can, they need that deduction that is so important to keeping that family together.

This is the same old, same old. In 2001, tax cuts of $1.3 trillion all premised on maybe we will have economic growth.

Remember the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves?

Well, they, today, call it dynamic scoring. Now we are being asked again to premise the argument on maybe there will be enough growth to generate some return on revenue.

In 2003, another $1.3 trillion in terms of a tax cut was offered with no or slow economic growth.

And the granddaddy of them all, in 2005, how about repatriation?

Foreign earnings were brought back at 5\1/4\ percent, all based upon the idea that there was going to be widespread broad-based hiring.

What did we discover in the aftermath of that?

Almost 20,000 layoffs in the weeks after it. The money was used for stock buybacks and dividends with no employment gains across the country.

They keep telling us: Well, you are going to get 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, and the President says 6 percent growth.

I want to find that economist who says we are going to get 6 percent growth.

Most projections are that we are being asked here today to participate in the following, because this is the context of the argument this morning: They are borrowing $2.3 trillion over 10 years for the purpose of giving a tax cut to people at the very top of our economic system.

We should be investing in human capital, community colleges, vocational education, internship programs, and aligning the American people with the skill sets that are necessary, as the Department of Labor reported this week, for the 6 million jobs that are available. That is the most gainful way to do long-term investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has a long and distinguished history in this Congress and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has the highest professional and personal esteem of every Member of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, under the Republican tax bill, 570,000 Michigan households earning less than $160,000 a year will see a tax hike.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee, whose admonitions to all of us should be something we could all rally around.

Mr. Speaker, 22,000 constituents of the gentleman from Miami's district will eventually face the Alzheimer's tax increase that is included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is a neighbor, a really nice guy, and a very thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is one of the most thoughtful Members of Congress, a leader in the field of renewable energy, and my friend

Mr. Speaker, 17,000 people in Mr. Hensarling's district will now pay higher interest on their student loan deductions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a great advocate for the heartland of America.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of the gentleman's constituents claim the State and local tax deduction, totalling $11,684 per family.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great friend to all of us here in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), whose knowledge of new markets tax credits is second to none in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), one of the most knowledgeable members of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a very successful businesswomen in her own right, who understands the modern economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have Mr. Kelly--as he describes sports teams, we discovered he is a closet Patriots fan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), whose history, in terms of revenue and revenue collection, is well known to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a Marshall Scholar and attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and one of the most knowledgeable Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a very thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as we wind down this debate on tax reform or, what we should really call it, tax cut, I think that we should tabulate this as a missed opportunity. This could have

been done between the two parties. Instead, much of this was constructed without any Democratic input.

Reminder: In 1986, the historic Tax Reform Act included President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill, Chairman Rostenkowski, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Bradley. In this instance here, 32 years later, not one hearing was held on this tax bill that is about to be voted on in the next 45 minutes.

The significance of that is that there was never any back-and-forth, and in 1986, expert testimony was sought from 450 witnesses. We had not one witness who commented on the legislation.

It has been advertised as a middle class tax cut. Wait until you get the bill. How can you say that this is a middle class tax cut and compare that to repeal of the estate tax?

How many middle class people in America pay the estate tax?

That is how many people pay the estate tax. No middle class American pays the estate tax. There is no such thing as a death tax, in addition to which a middle class tax cut is described as doing away with the alternative minimum tax. 4.5 million families pay an alternative minimum tax in America. That is it.

I fixed the problem years ago for the middle class, and 27 million people stopped paying AMT. So now we are down to people at the very top.

So how are we paying for this? Or how are they paying for it, better, because they are not going to get much help on this side?

Well, they decided that that teacher who used to have $250, that they could deduct on their income taxes, that is going to be abolished.

So if you have Alzheimer's and you exceed the 10 percent number in terms of cost in your healthcare for caring for that loved one at home who is sick or has dementia, that is how they are going to pay for the tax cut. They are going to take that away.

State and local property taxes, they are going to take that away--the deduction. They are going to pare back the mortgage interest tax deduction. All of this advertised on the basis of a middle class tax cut?

People at the bottom end are not going to get much from this tax cut. I want to take you back again, as I have repeatedly, because I have cast three great votes in this House during my 29 years: against the Iraq war, and there weren't many of us; against the cuts in 2001; and against the tax system in 2003; all advertised as progrowth economics.

There was no economic growth in the tax cuts of 2001, which totaled, by the way, $1.3 trillion. For people who said at the time, ``everybody gets a tax cut,'' they were correct. Then you looked at the distribution tables to see what people got at the top and then what people got at the bottom. Then we came back in 2003 and cut another trillion dollars in taxes--advertises progrowth economics--zippo growth occurred.

Then, by the way, the granddaddy of them all: How about repatriation. Repatriation, bringing back those earnings to the United States for investment in job growth, at, by the way, 5\1/4\ was the tax burden they carried, all based on job growth. It was for stock buybacks, dividends, and layoffs.

We had a chance here to do something historic. We had a chance here in this debate and discussion because there is a genuine affability on that committee. We had this opportunity to take the Tax Code and transform it for the gig economy in the modern age. We didn't do that, though. Four days we had to examine this tax proposal with no hearings. Not one chance for a Democratic amendment to proceed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the support of the Democratic staff that are here as well: Kara Getz, Karen McAfee, Aruna Kalyanam, Peg McGlinch, Deva Kyle, Ji Prichard, and Suzanne Walsh. They did a magnificent job as well, and we are much dependent on the good staff work, particularly, on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the missed opportunity that we have here. We have a real problem in America with labor participation rates. Six million job go unanswered every day now in America, 18,000 precision manufacturing jobs in New England, and 1 million tech jobs, because skill sets don't align with the job opportunities that are out there.

Two million Americans sit home with opioid addictions who should be in the workforce. This was a chance to invest in human capital as well, to invest in our community colleges, to invest in apprenticeship programs. Yes, the other challenge that we have in America is, clearly, to invest in vocational education for many of the jobs that are available.

Instead, we pushed that off to the side and decided that, once again, if we just had tax cuts, all of these challenges and problems would go away.

The idea of investing in the human side of American opportunity is then

people do what we would like them to do in terms of home buying, raising families, caring for neighborhoods, and practicing the art form of citizenship.

Once again, what we are witnessing today--and we need to be alarmed about it--is the greater and greater conservation of wealth in America. Now, I understand it is complicated. It has to do much with technology and globalization, but it is also about the gig economy, and we, today, reward capital more than we reward labor.

When we get done, if they are successful on the other side, we are going to further concentrate wealth amongst those few families in America. We serve here in the House of Representatives, not in the House of Lords. This is not about peerage, where you are entitled to a seat in this House of Representatives. That is what is wrong. That is what Jefferson and Madison envisioned when they signed those bonds of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution to break with Europe. We don't practice divine right here.

I wish the outcome here today, Mr. Speaker, would have been more genuine and it would have been different.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a very capable legislator, the Democratic whip.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the chairman mentioned President Reagan. But he made it sound as though President Reagan did tax reform on his own. Tax reform in 1986 was done in a bipartisan manner. I guess we just leave out Speaker O'Neill and we just leave out Chairman Rostenkowski and we just leave out Senator Bradley or Congressman Gephardt. The reason that they are left out is because even though it was accomplished in 1986, it started in 1982 when Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Bradley introduced the first tax reform act.

What happened in those intervening years?

The Ways and Means Committee took testimony from 50 witnesses. They held 30 markups and an untold number of hearings.

Contrast that with what we did in the Ways and Means Committee: not one witness, not one hearing, not one opportunity to hear from renowned economists, labor leaders, or individuals who would have great knowledge not just of what happened in 1986, but what could happen in this Chamber. Instead, we are going forward with this ill-considered effort.

This is a missed opportunity. This is a bad deal for millions of Americans in the middle class. The legislation puts the wealthy, the well-connected, and the strong, once again, at the top. Thirty-six million Americans are going to receive a tax increase.

When they talk about tax simplification, take a look at the phase-ins and phase-outs of this measure. That is hardly simplification. It is greater complexity.

Oh, by the way, the corporate rate is made permanent. The individual issues phase out after 5 years.

Consider this: 13 million people will lose their health insurance based on what Republicans are doing in the United States Senate. They are going to lose their healthcare to pay for a tax cut for people at the very top.

Let me just walk you through some of these provisions because I think that they deserve our attention and the magnifying glass of critical analysis.

We are being asked tonight to borrow $2.3 trillion to pay for this tax cut. This is from people who regularly lecture the American electorate on the need for fiscal austerity and balanced budgets.

When Barack Obama was President, the budget should be balanced. When Bill Clinton was President, the budget should be balanced. But in the intervening period of time, apparently, we don't have to balance the budget.

Also, $2.3 trillion is being added to the debt and deficits. We are witnessing what they are attempting to do because they are going to scale back the tax benefit for buying a new home by lowering the cap on mortgage interest deduction to $500,000. That is going to lower home values.

H.R. 1 repeals the new markets tax credit. The historic tax credit that has transformed American cities is being eliminated. They beat up on the municipal bond market.

As a former mayor, I have some knowledge of the municipal bond market.

They are getting rid of the private activity bonds. Years ago, I raised the cap so that we might do more intervention and innovation in terms of rebuilding our airports across the country. Private activity bonds are a key for financing affordable housing. It is going to go by the wayside if they have their way. It is going to have a profound impact on the housing market.

They eliminate several deductions and exclusions that help pay for college education, including a deduction for interest on student loans.

Pay attention to this number. Student debt in America is at $1.3 trillion, and they are taking away the ability of students to deduct that interest on those loans.

They also impose a new tax on universities and colleges.

They repeal the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses. You know, those teachers who, in September, might be short some school supplies and they are good enough to pack the car up and bring it to school? We give them a $250 deduction. They are going to take it away.

They create a health tax, an Alzheimer's tax, by repealing the medical expense deduction. This change basically scraps a family's ability to receive financial relief when dealing with serious medical conditions.

Think of it this way: We celebrate annually the increases in life expectancy in America--80 for a male, 81 for a female. But if we are going to celebrate that, we also have to acknowledge something else: more dementia and more Alzheimer's as people grow older in America. So their decision is: Let's take away the ability of individuals to deduct those expenses.

They also want to write off a very important consideration for the middle class in their ability to deduct real property tax costs up to $10,000.

Contrast this with what these tax cuts do for the wealthy.

H.R. 1 repeals the estate tax, which is paid by a small number of families in America. They are going to repeal it. I guess the slogan becomes: We are rich, and we are not going to take it anymore. That is not a tax on Conrad Hilton; it is a tax on Paris Hilton. That is what we should be considering with the greater efforts on their side to further concentrate wealth.

By the way, there is an issue I have worked on for decades here, successfully, because 27 million middle class families no longer pay the alternative minimum tax. But guess what they are going to do? They are going to eliminate it for 4.5 million of the richest families in America. They are going to take away that payment.

This is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. This could have been done the way Chairman Brady indicated in 1986: hearings, markups, a genuine effort to find common ground on this.

On our side, I have waited all these years to do this. Tonight and tomorrow, what you are witnessing is that they need a victory. That is what this is about. It is a victory in search of a policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am for maintaining the status quo by allowing students to deduct their student interest loans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, this bill phases out the deductions that benefit middle-income families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 Nebraska households making under $137,000 a year will see a tax increase under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), my good friend from Somerville, Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of Mr. Paulsen's constituents claim the SALT deduction, a benefit of over $15,000. They are lucky to break even after this tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, over 350,000 Tennessee households making under $132,000 will see a tax increase with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a leader on the Higher Education Subcommittee and well known nationally as a spokesperson on education issues.

Mr. Speaker, all of those projects in Philadelphia are about to come to an end with the abolition of the historic tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who, incidentally, is a CPA and a tax attorney

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

Mr. Speaker, 38,000 South Dakota households making less than $113,000 a year will see a tax increase under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the highly regarded gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the son of Massachusetts and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a well-regarded champion of middle-income people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a valued member of our delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, correction. Not one hearing was held on this tax bill. Thirty-eight thousand people in Mr. Reed's district will lose the student loan interest deduction.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a real champion of the working class in America.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a son of Springfield, Massachusetts, and a very distinguished gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the University of Notre Dame is about to get slugged with a new tax, and the clock is running out.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who has been a champion of the working class.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity as we proceed to watch them borrow $2.3 trillion on the deficit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), from a well-known family.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), a conscience of the House and a champion of all things Pittsburgh.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is well known and well regarded as he addresses national economic issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), well-known as a champion of America's middle class.

Madam Speaker, 28,000 people will use the student loan interest deduction in Missouri's Eighth District, claiming nearly $33 million in deductions.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a medical man and Congressman.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I just happen to have the nephew of former President Kennedy here who is going to set the record straight on that quote that was attributed to President Kennedy just a few moments ago.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), a very good member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). Congressman Raskin is a well-known champion of civil liberties and a scholar of the law.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell). Congresswoman Sewell is an attorney and a Marshall Scholar.

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

Madam Speaker, 33 percent of Mr. Knight's constituents derive a $16,000 annual benefit from the State and local tax deduction.

In the case of the gentlewoman from California, 37 percent of her constituents enjoy an $18,200 State and local tax deduction benefit.

Madam Speaker, in closing, more than anything else, this is, as I opened with, a missed opportunity.

We all know what is wrong with this Tax Code. We could have found areas of compromise emphasizing the middle class and middle-income earners. We understand that the Tax Code that American corporations use is not competitive now internationally, but we wanted some relief for middle-income people.

So here is where the investment could have taken place. We could have begun an investment in human capital. You have heard it tonight. We should all be alarmed by labor participation rates in America. We all should be alarmed by what has happened in the post-war period where, at one time, it was 63 percent, and now it is 63.8 percent.

It is about technology; it is about globalization, for sure; but it is also about skill set. Eighteen thousand precision manufacturing jobs in New England go unanswered, the smallest geographic region of the country. The Department of Labor reported this week that 6 million jobs in America go unanswered. It is part of a skill set issue.

You know what else we need to be concerned about?

Two million people in America are addicted to opioids. That is what we should be concerned about as well as getting them back into the workplace through the trampoline effect, where they hit it and bounce back up into the mainstream. But that is not what we did.

Without any hearings, without any chance for the minority to participate, in terms of substance, we moved forward.

I want to say to the last two speakers, they are sincere enough. We have heard now four different people come to the well of this House on the other side and say to the chairperson of our committee and a friend: Are you going to fix this after the bill leaves here?

Four different people asked for a fix. I want to tell you, based on long experience in this House, the path gets more narrow as it leaves this House. It doesn't grow more expansive. It will be harder to fix these things because of the budget score that was embraced.

In 2001, we were promised widespread economic growth when President Bush took the Clinton surplus and offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. When you look at the distribution tables, they were right about one thing: everybody did get a tax cut. But then you look at those tables and you say: Let me examine who got what.

In 2003, we came back and the President proposed $1 trillion worth of tax cuts based on the premise of economic growth, which didn't happen.

By the way, in 2004, there was repatriation, which may be the granddaddy of them all. Well, we are going to repatriate those holdings offshore at 5\1/4\ percent o the premise of job growth. And there was none.

We had this opportunity to do this together, as I described with worker participation rates, understanding that most families now are not having large numbers of children any longer. This should have been about immigration reform attached to it as well. We all know skilled workers from overseas are going to be an important part of the American economy, and we should be embracing that, along with sensible tax policies based upon some relief for the middle class.

Instead, we are taking away the ability of American students to deduct interest on their loans to pay for a tax cut for people at the top?

We are taking away a medical expense deduction for people who have Alzheimer's disease to pay for the tax cut for people at the top?

We are assessing universities and colleges a new, special tax to pay for tax cuts for people at the top?

We could have had this conversation. We acknowledge what President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill did because it was based upon good will and commonality and not needing just a political victory. Day after day they plowed through with 450 witnesses in front of the Ways and Means Committee.

How many witnesses did we have in front of the Ways and Means Committee?

Zero.

How many hearings did we have on this tax bill?

Zero.

We saw the manager's amendment and were given 20 minutes to review it. I don't mean 25 minutes. I mean 20 minutes. Back to regular order. We should scrap this bill.

To those who are vulnerable on the other side, I would not be trusting of the idea that these issues are going to be fixed after you cast this vote tomorrow morning. There will be an opportunity to go back and redo this if the other side would say: Let's find a meaningful path to cooperation between the two parties.

That is all we are asking for on this side: include us in this discussion so we might invest in community colleges, vocational education, internship programs, skill set training, and answer the call of globalization.

We still have innovation and creativity that far surpasses the rest of the world. There is nothing we can't answer in America without those healthy investments that we need.

Instead, when you look at these distribution tables that are proposed as to who is going to get what; taking away the alternative minimum tax for the 4.5 million families that pay it; asking students to give up their student interest deduction; the estate tax, which we are repealing; and we are asking that loved ones who have Alzheimer's and being cared for at home to give up that medical deduction to pay for all of that, it makes no sense whatsoever. But there is an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to reverse course.

In my years here, I can tell you this: Anybody who thinks that the United States Senate is going to accommodate their wishes, when they see the goalpost and the goal line of a handful of Members of this House, they are making a miscalculation.

We have heard tonight they are going to do something about state and local tax deduction, they are going to do something about the historic tax credit, and they are going to revisit these issues.

Do you know how difficult that is going to be, Madam Speaker?

That is going to be nearly impossible.

On top of that, they are going to go back and try to appeal the Affordable Care Act again and take 13 million people away from their insurance so that we can have a tax cut that further concentrates wealth for a handful of people in America?

This is the House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, not the House of Lords. We don't serve here by peerage. We are not entitled to anything here. Most of us come from pretty modest backgrounds. That is the principle we should be honoring in this tax debate as we discuss who is about to pay what and what the rewards ought to be for the hardworking men and women.

This is last note I am going to express before I yield back my time. What about those 1 million veterans who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan?

New veterans, what about them?

Are we going to eventually cut their benefits with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and put it all on the chopping block as we attempt to further concentrate wealth in America, particularly for unearned income, by the way?

That is where we are heading.

We should honor the skills of those men and women who get up every day and strive and work hard in this country with a sense of purpose and great patriotism. That is what we should be acknowledging in this debate.

I am looking forward to tomorrow morning, when we conclude this debate and spend the 2 hours discussing more of what we have witnessed here tonight. There will be more than enough enthusiasm on our side. They will be lined up to RFK Stadium to participate tomorrow morning in this debate. That is how important this is to the future of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we are going to be asked to cast perhaps one of the most important votes that will take place in a career here in the House based on the tax plan that the Republicans have put forward.

I say history is important, because this vote is likely to have consequences for years and years and years to come.

As I noted earlier tonight, as we look at a million new veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who deserve our care, for those of us who represent soldiers' homes and hospitals for the VA, we know just how important this is.

We know what happens to Alzheimer's patients who are going to lose the deduction on healthcare. We know what is going to happen to those students who currently write off parts of their student loans through interest deductions. We know the assessed tax that is going to go on places like the University of Notre Dame and others. We also understand that the homeowner deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, which is a huge middle class benefit, is about to be taken away arbitrarily.

State and local taxes, in some cases sales taxes, are about to be abolished all based upon the premise of maybe there will be enough economic growth.

There is no evidence, based on the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 or the repatriation that took place in 2004, that any of this is accurate, but they continue to proceed.

The next part of the challenge is they have now substituted the old supply side economics theory--remember tax cuts pay for themselves--and they have come up with a new term, and the new term that they have come up with is ``dynamic scoring.''

So we have the challenge of technology, we have the challenge of globalization, and, yes, we have the challenge of skill set across America to move people into a direction of employment where they and their skills might be aligned with the jobs that are open, because the Department of Labor this week said there are 6 million jobs in America that go unanswered, 18,000 precision manufacturing jobs in New England that go unanswered, and 1 million tech jobs.

So we should be using this opportunity to invest in vocational education; we should be using it to invest in internship programs; and, yes, we should be using it to invest in community colleges. So part of this discussion should be based on, again, the historic vote of long- term investment.

Now, we also know that is unlikely to happen because, when people have a chance to look at these distribution tables on these tax cuts as to who gets what, they are going to be furious.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Napa, California (Mr. Thompson), and then the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) will be acknowledged right after that.

I yield to the gentleman.

The summary of this tax bill was published last Thursday. We did a walk-through on Monday. We only had a chance to respond to the bill, or the chairman's mark on Friday. And then on Monday, we did a walk-through. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday morning, we did the markup. Not one hearing.

And recall that, in the last moments of the markup, we were handed a manager's amendment. We had 20 minutes to react to the manager's amendment, so no hearings.

And compare that with 1986, which everybody heralds now, as the great moment of Reagan and O'Neill and Rostenkowski and Gephardt and Bradley, 450 witnesses, 30 public hearings. The Secretary of the Treasury sat through the markup.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to Mr. Davis to talk about historic tax credits. I know Mr. Lipinski is here from Chicago as well to talk about new markets, and then we can talk, as Mr. Kind did, about the retirement crisis that is coming, and we can just yield back and forth to make sure that people understand the totality of what is being asked in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, forgive me for being from New England. I will leave that alone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Mr. Welch, who made it to Vermont via Springfield, who has a longstanding interest in higher education--maybe he could talk about parts of Vermont that are very rural and also link it to that whole notion of higher education in the State of Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont. It was a very nice description of our hometown, Springfield, Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who is a good friend to all of us here.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Lipinski and the group that is assembled here tonight. I want to encourage the American people to pay attention beginning again tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when we are going to finish the debate on this legislation.

I hope that as they pay attention to it they will consider what a missed opportunity this was, a reminder that one of the most complex pieces of legislation offered in the years I have been here had no public hearings. Not one witness was summonsed to give advice on a tax bill of this consequence.

It has been advertised as a middle class tax cut. I can assure you that 36 million Americans are going to pay more when this is done.

Also, another reminder to pay close attention to is that our friends down the hallway in the Senate are going to include an end to the mandate, which is the glue that holds together the Affordable Care Act, in a further effort to take away health insurance from 13 million people to pay for a tax cut.

This could have been done together, Democrats and Republicans. We wanted to do it. We were shut out of this process from day one. Remember, this legislation was offered last Thursday. A manager's mark was published Friday. We went to markup on Monday, and we were done on Thursday. There was no opportunity for us to participate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor Gunnery Sergeant Thomas ``Tommy'' Sullivan of the United States Marine Corps. On Thursday July 16, 2015, a gunman attacked a Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee. During that senseless act of violence, Gunnery Sergeant Sullivan made the ultimate sacrifice by giving his life to defend his fellow service members.

Tommy Sullivan was born and raised in Springfield, Massachusetts. He graduated from Cathedral High School in 1994, and became a Marine three years later. His friends and family all attest that Tommy was determined to serve his county since a young age. Over the course of nearly two decades in the military, Tommy survived two tours in Iraq, was awarded two Purple Hearts, and made a lasting impression on all those who served with him. Many have proudly said that he was everything that a Marine should be. He was a natural leader who always kept his composure, and who mentored less experienced Marines. Those who served with him recall that after battles he always took the time to talk to everyone under his command, and was never afraid to crack a joke in order to ease the tension.

Tommy's bravery during the attack on that Chattanooga military installation in 2015 will forever be remembered. On that day, he helped more than a dozen of his fellow servicemen escape when a gunman opened fire. When he turned back to help two others, he unfortunately lost his life. For his valor, Tommy was posthumously awarded the Lieutenant J. Frank Murphy Medal of Valor--an annual award given by the Springfield Veterans' Activities Committee to a resident who risked their lives to save others. His family was also honored with Tommy's third Purple Heart which was awarded to him for his heroic actions.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again honor Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan for his courage and service to our country. He was loyal to his family, his friends, and the extraordinary individuals of the Marine Corps and all of our nation's Armed Forces. To Tommy's family, please know that the United States of America will never forget his heroism and sacrifice and we are eternally grateful.

Mr. Speaker, it is getting time for Halloween, so they have put on the disguise on the other side. So what we are hearing today is, from the last two Republican speakers: This is a bad budget. Let's vote ``yes.''

The gentleman from Ohio said a while ago, this is all about the middle class. The middle class does not pay an estate tax. The middle class, because of our efforts--and, I think, mine in particular--no longer pay the alternative minimum tax. And the people in the middle class are not locked into the 39.6 top rate in the Tax Code. This is a disguise.

They are adding $1.5 trillion to the debt and, actually, over 10 years, when you borrow the money, they are adding $2.3 trillion to the debt, all for a tax cut for people at the very top.

Now, let me say this: I am happy to negotiate a tax reform package that we can all live with. I am happy to sit down with the other side and acknowledge some parts of the Code that clearly don't work any longer for the American people.

This is being done by one party, exclusively. They have not negotiated with us. They have not given us the opening. They have not said to us: ``Where do you want to proceed on this?''

Instead, if you pass this budget today, they suggest you are going to see their plan on November 1, and you are going to vote for it sometime around November 6. That is not negotiation.

The Congress I signed up for actually negotiated these agreements, and if you couldn't love the final passage, at least you could like it because you had sufficient input. That is not what has happened, Mr. Speaker, in this process.

This process is one-sided. It is one-dimensional. They interchangeably use the words ``tax cut'' and ``tax reform.'' This is about a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the disaster supplement because it provides critical funds to help rebuild communities in the U.S. states and territories, including Puerto Rico. Although I support this bill, I am concerned it is not enough. For example, it fails to provide funds for Community Development Block Grants, critical health care needs, Social Services Block Grants and public housing assistance.

I am proud to represent one of the largest Puerto Rican communities in the United States. Since the hurricane, I have worked closely with federal and state authorities to ensure help is delivered to the island in an efficient manner. In addition, I have worked closely with Puerto Rican communities in my Congressional district to answer questions and help them reconnect with friends and family. We need to assure people in these devastated areas Congress will stand with them in the short and long term--provide comfort and immediate needs now and also funds to rebuild infrastructure and restore and strengthen their economy that will sustain well into the future.

As these funds are dispersed, it is imperative they are managed responsibly so storm victims don't become targets of shady outsiders or crooked business owners.

This week, President Trump once again let down the people of Puerto Rico by announcing he plans to prematurely pull the military, FEMA and other critical agency support from the island. This approach is irresponsible and dangerous. The island and its people are still fragile and need to rebuild, not be burdened with further anxiety and uncertainty.

Mr. Chair, since the gentlewoman, my friend from Tennessee, remarked upon economic growth, let me, as one who was here at the time, perhaps correct the Record.

Bill Clinton's economic growth was higher than Ron Reagan's, and that is not in dispute. Barack Obama's economic growth was higher than George W. Bush's. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of the Bush administration, to bring up one point, which, by the way, is closer to 2.1 percent.

People here know I follow these issues like a hawk, but the truth is that this budget today that is being put forward is a threat to Medicare and Social Security down the road.

The previous speaker said he is concerned about mandatory spending. I gotcha. Put out a plan. Put out a plan on Social Security and Medicare. And don't do it in the backdoor way here as they complain about deficits and they prepare to embrace a tax cut of $1.5 trillion or, over 10 years, $2.2 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which amounted to $2.3 trillion. So we are at $5 trillion worth of tax cuts, and the Clinton administration left us with four balanced budgets and $5 trillion worth of surplus.

This is not a budget that supports meaningful tax reform. I am ready, and she knows because of our working together in the past, prepared to work with Republicans on fundamental tax reform. The system is begging for it.

Don't call tax reform tax reform when it is really a tax cut. And that is where this is headed, and I think they know that as well.

This is a partisan roadmap that has failed in the past. They are using reconciliation instruction so that the majority can ram through a tax plan here. That is all it is about.

Last night, by the way, the tradeoff is in some States you can keep the mortgage interest deduction if you are willing to give up the State and local tax deduction.

I want to tell you something, I guarantee you right now, based on long history, we will end up keeping both, and they will have to add more to the debt as time goes on.

Is this a cut for the wealthy? Eighty percent of the tax cut goes to the top 1 percent in 2027.

This is from the Tax Policy Center in Washington. Incidentally, how great is it to have a nonpartisan scoring committee offer us a snapshot of the future?

The average tax cut for millionaires, $230,000 a year in 2027. The average tax

cut for the top one-tenth of 1 percent is $1 million in the year 2027.

The people in this country who need tax relief are the middle class. We should be investing in human capital, community colleges; we should be investing in vocational education.

So 45 percent of all households with children will see a tax increase in 2027. Among households earning between $50,000 and $150,000, you are going to see a one-third tax increase in 2027.

I look at this and say: Why are we not offering some relief to middle class Americans? Why are we not investing in them? Do we not have enough faith in them to help them get through what have been difficult times with children in college and costs mounting all of the time?

Instead, it is back to tax relief for people at the very top. I guess concentrated wealth in America now is not a big issue. I guess the top 1 percent in America who, by the way, aren't even asking for tax relief--that is the irony of this. They are not asking for tax relief. They are arguing for more investment in America rather than concentrating more money in fewer hands.

The American people deserve a Tax Code that is based on fairness. Our code should reward hardworking, middle class families, small business, innovation, and ensure that no one, no matter how wealthy they are, can avoid paying their fair share.

Our focus is going to be on helping the middle class, creating jobs, boosting wages, and giving people the assistance they need in a complicated economy with their grocery bills and childcare as well. Invest in human capital today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts on the occasion of its 250th anniversary. Over the course of its storied history, Lenox has been home to people and events which have greatly contributed to the vibrancy of our country's traditions and culture. Located in the heart of the Berkshire Mountains, the town is a wonderful representation of Western Massachusetts and the beauty it holds.

Lenox was named after Charles Lennox, the Third Duke of Richmond, who was known and respected for being an advocate of the interests of American colonists in the British House of Lords. The town lived up to the legacy of its namesake as an active participant in the Revolutionary War. In less than a decade after its first town meeting in 1767, Lenox was represented before the Royal Governor of Massachusetts by Colonel John Paterson, who would go on to play a central role in paving the way for the birth of the United States of America.

Since then, Lenox has contributed generously to the notable history and culture of not only Massachusetts, but also that of our nation. The region's rustic beauty helped Lenox develop into a lively artists' colony, attracting creative minds the likes of which included writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, photographer James

Van Der Zee, and novelist Edith Wharton. The town has facilitated the preservation of The Mount, Ms. Wharton's country estate, which is a National Historic Landmark and welcomes tens of thousands of visitors annually. Lenox is also renowned for its cultivation and encouragement of the musical arts through the annual Tanglewood Music Festival, as well as the Tanglewood Estate which has served as the summer home for the Boston Symphony Orchestra since 1937. The town also boasts the new international campus of Shakespeare and Company, a popular theater group and world-famous center for creative excellence in the arts.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts has been a place of historical importance and cultural renaissance since its founding in 1767. Additionally, its admirable promotion of the arts is certainly worthy of recognition. Lenox is a place of outstanding character and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. As the town celebrates their 250th anniversary with a town-wide parade, I wish them all the best and continued prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge those individuals that Mr. Curbelo pointed out and congratulate them for their courage and their kindness as they attempt to get southern Florida back on its feet.

But the key phrase here that my friend from Florida mentioned was the following: Now it is time for us to do our part.

``Our part'' calls for a much more vigorous effort, a much more robust investment, and it could, it should, be done now. We don't have to wait to get this done. We don't have to parcel this out in the small amounts that are being suggested.

Now, earlier this week, I rose in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, as well. Today, I am disappointed to say that I am not going to support today's updated version of the legislation either, based on the word ``more.''

I take no issue with a clean 6-month extension of the FAA expenditure authority, but today's bill includes an extensive list of extraneous provisions.

If we are to include extraneous measures on this must-pass legislation, then the process of compiling the bill should have been done in a bipartisan manner. Instead, our Republican friends assembled their near-term priorities barely, if at all, consulting the Democratic minority, even though many of these issues are indeed bipartisan.

Worse, rather than work together to solve what is rapidly becoming an American humanitarian crisis, they chose to take most of the day off to unveil the tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.

The priorities at this moment are misguided. As I noted earlier this week, while I support the disaster tax relief in this bill, the package is plainly insufficient. I had hoped that we might work together in a manner on these provisions, but that has not occurred.

Traditionally, in this body, we honored and used to respect what is known as the national principle. It was a code of honor that bound us together when one part of the Nation was beset by disaster. Whether it was an earthquake in California, a hurricane in North Carolina, a tornado in Massachusetts, floods in Missouri, or forest fires in Alabama, we did not ask about gender, race, geography. We simply said the national principle prevails and the Federal Government will offer a robust response.

We are failing in that respect to set the precedent today. Instead, unfortunately, this disaster relief package that we will consider does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in American communities in Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the devastation across Puerto Rico.

These hurricanes left massive devastation in their wake, and the ongoing situation in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are dire. The situation not only justifies but demands a comprehensive package of incentives and relief to help these communities and their residents get back to their feet.

Republicans will hide behind an amendment they added to the Rules Committee last night. It is really a fig leaf, amounting to $68 per person in tax relief. We can do much more for our American brothers and sisters in the Caribbean, especially given that the administration continues to drag its feet in terms of sending an emergency supplemental request. That should be done forthwith. We can do better, and we must do better.

They are making vague assurances that we will get around to considering a more extensive package later, but delay and uncertainty will make the situation worse, not better.

Today's package should have included other powerful and proven tax incentives that we have extended in the past disaster recovery efforts consistently. I consider this a missed opportunity.

We need to do more to help our fellow Americans recover from these tragedies. Therefore, I intend to oppose this legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and I must tell you that anybody who has witnessed her heartfelt advocacy on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico in the last 24 hours would be moved. I also would say that nobody in this Chamber knows more about what has happened in Puerto Rico right now than the gentlewoman from New York, Nydia Velazquez.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, you just heard the eloquent testimony from Ms. Velazquez about what the people of Puerto Rico are facing right now.

I wish that the majority would have approached this process differently. The reauthorization of the FAA could have been a simple, straightforward exercise. It could have and should have been a bipartisan effort. They saddled the FAA with unrelated partisan priorities, incorporated with little input from Democrats, and presented a weak tax package to address the recent major national disasters.

As I said when a version of this bill came up earlier this week, I wish the disaster tax relief section were better designed and more extensive. This updated bill still doesn't provide adequate relief to the affected families and communities who desperately need it. You just heard from Ms. Velazquez on that basis.

While waiving penalties on the withdrawal of retirement savings and expanding EITC and child tax credit provisions are helpful, the majority inexplicably left out some of the most economically powerful tax incentives on the shelf, including those that would be helpful to rebuild devastated infrastructure.

Given this damage and the needs of hard-hit areas, especially the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, I cannot understand why we are not including proven

assistance contained in previous disaster tax packages as we did to our family and friends in places like Texas and Louisiana.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 1235, the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act, which I introduced along with my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

People in Kentucky think that they invented basketball. It was actually invented in Massachusetts. But I want to thank him personally, as well as professionally, for the good work that he has done in helping to bring about this day.

As the Hall of Fame celebrates its 125th anniversary of the invention of basketball, this commemorative coin symbolizes all the sport has accomplished since its humble beginnings in a YMCA gymnasium in Springfield, Massachusetts. This truly American game continues to be played by men and women at every level and on every continent.

In December of 1891, a physical education professor named Dr. James Naismith created a game with a simple objective: throw a round ball into a peach basket that was suspended 10 feet above the ground. While only one basket was made available during those first games, it would soon become quite popular with students.

Thanks to the network of YMCAs throughout the country and the game's success on various college campuses, the sport soon became a national phenomenon. By 1894, basketball was being played around the Nation and in dozens of countries around the world.

During the 1920s and 1930s, teams like the Original Celtics and the New York Renaissance carried professional basketball to the national conscience for the first time.

Internationally, popularity of the new sport from America led to the formation of the International Basketball Federation, which was pivotal in adding basketball to the Summer Olympic Games in 1936. Eventually, the National Basketball Association was founded in 1946, and continues to enjoy great success.

The Basketball Hall of Fame inducted its first class in 1959, despite the lack of any physical structure. They would get their first home on the campus of Springfield College in 1968, just a short way from the game's first site.

Thousands of visitors came to the campus to see memorabilia and be inspired by the stories of the sport's early days. As the game skyrocketed in national popularity in the 1980s, with icons like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, the Hall of Fame found the need to expand. As the mayor of Springfield at the time, I helped to ensure a location on the banks of the Connecticut River.

In 1985, the Hall reopened with a three-level museum with hundreds of pieces of memorabilia and displays. The admiration for the sport forced the Hall to expand once again, in 2002, with a state-of-the-art structure just steps away from the old facility.

Today, the Hall welcomes 6 million visitors annually. They are dazzled with its interactive displays and exhibits. As of this year, the Hall has inducted 365 of the greatest players, coaches, and referees. Players like Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Bradley, and coaches like John Wooden and Pat Summitt have been honored for their contributions to the sport. The Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coin is the ideal way for the legacy of these great athletes and coaches to be remembered for decades to come.

With no cost to the American taxpayer, the surcharges on these coins will go to further the museum's curation efforts. The proceeds will also go toward educational programs to promote good sportsmanship and respect on and off the court.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Hall of Fame on multiple projects for more than 30 years. It is a terrific tax-exempt organization that works tirelessly to preserve the history and educate people about this truly American game.

I believe that basketball instills the virtues that this country was built upon and gives Americans someone to aspire to be. As former NBA player and United States Senator Bill Bradley put it: ``Sports is a metaphor for overcoming obstacles and achieving against great odds. Athletes, in times of difficulty, can be important role models.''

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1235, and a special note of thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for keeping the debate open so that I could actually speak on this.

Again, as I close, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr). He was terrific in his help on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, for one simple reason. This is an anemic response to these disasters, whether they occur on the mainland of the United States or within American possessions.

This should have been done on Friday afternoon with the two parties working together. Instead, once again, this was put together by one party, with minimal input from our side. These are all

members of the American family that have been impacted by what has happened with this terrible weather.

The chance here for us to work together to make this an expanded package, where we could be talking about a host of opportunities for these folks who have been put in such a precarious situation, is now being missed. There are 90 Members of this Congress who actually voted against direct aid in the past for relief for members of the American family, where we should have taken the position here, clearly: Let's try to figure out what we can do for a robust tax package, what we can do for immediate aid, and highlight the role that FEMA plays. And I certainly have expressed to Mr. Curbelo time and again I am there on board. I just think this needs to be more, and I think that is the position that we are offering today.

Furthermore, a partisan position had to be taken in terms of many priorities that we should have been consulted on, and even those could have been turned into bipartisan moments. I support the disaster relief that is in this bill, but it is clear that the package is woefully inadequate. I would hope that we could work together on these provisions.

The disaster relief package included in this bill does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in the American communities that include Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Without the fix that we want on this side, the effect of lost revenue is going to mean that money is lost that otherwise would be needed for normal operations and the response effort. It is going to take years to adequately respond to what has happened and the devastation that these folks are up against. We need to be sitting here, both parties working together, to say: They are all members of the American family. Let's get it done.

I consider this a missed opportunity, and I hope that we can do more in the next few days to get back on track to help them bounce back from these, indeed, tragedies. We should be sitting down here in the next 48 hours and putting together a massive package of relief for these States and for these possessions and making sure that they have what is necessary, rather than doing a piecemeal fix on what is sure to be a very tormented time for members of these communities and these States and these possessions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a sufficient opportunity here going forward, as the previous gentlemen has spoken, to discuss the whole issue of flood insurance. I just don't think this is the moment to be discussing the flood insurance initiatives. Instead, I think that ought to be subject to a full-throttled debate in this

institution about getting those things done. This is not, I think, the appropriate forum for accomplishing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the gentleman from California that when you talk about graduate medical education, believe me, in Massachusetts, we are for graduate medical education. Be assured of that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we all support reauthorization of the FAA. What has happened here again is a breakdown in the conversation that used to meld this institution together.

There was a chance on Friday for Republicans to consult with us in the minority, put together a bipartisan package of many very important provisions that are important to Mr. Curbelo, important to certainly Texas, important to the Virgin Islands. It is certainly important to Puerto Rico.

Let me give you a quick example of how this institution used to work. We used to call this the national principle. The national principle essentially said if there was an earthquake in California, we all rose to the support of California. If there were forest fires in Alabama, which there were, we would all come to the aid of the people of Alabama. If there was a horrific, torrential downpour in Texas, we simply said: We don't ask if it is a red State or a blue State, or if they are Libertarians or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans. We said: They are members of the American family. We said: Do what has to be done and then send us the bill. We believe that there will be ample opportunity to debate and discuss the size of the portionality at that moment.

Instead, where we had this opportunity right here to provide a robust package to the people of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, we decide to come back with an anemic proposal.

We are coming up short on our responsibility. We had a tornado in my hometown 5 years ago. Those Federal employees did a spectacular job everywhere in eight communities, and nobody said: Too much government. They said: Let's fix this for, again, the American family to get this straightened out.

I have said to Mr. Curbelo, and I will repeat it, we will put up 195 Democrats immediately for a bigger package for the people of Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, not to piecemeal this together.

By the way, let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for those of us from the Northeast, the idea that 90 Members of this institution voted against direct relief just a couple of weeks ago looking for a pay-for, I wonder if they are going to use that same application of consistency when we get to the tax proposals that are about to consume our time.

We want to provide adequate relief to these families and the communities that need it. We could do this in the next 48 hours without any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, because this is not big enough and not supportive enough of the American family, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and 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 congratulate The Honorable Jane F. Garvey on being the recipient of The 2017 L. Welch Pogue Award for Lifetime Achievement in Aviation. Over the course of her distinguished career, she has delivered decades of dedicated service in top leadership roles within both the public and private sectors.

Jane Garvey grew up in Western Massachusetts. She graduated from Mount Saint Mary College in New York and then went on to attain her master's degree from Mount Holyoke College, where I served on the Board of Trustees for many years. Jane notably served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from 1997 to 2002. She was the first FAA Administrator to serve a full five-year term and also the first woman to lead the agency. She directed the FAA through the formidable events of September 11, 2001 with compassion, steady guidance, and assurance of mission. She also led the agency through Y2K preparation and implementation. Prior to this, Jane was Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. She has also previously served as director of Boston's Logan International Airport, as well as commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. Currently, Jane is the North America Chairman of Meridiam, one of the largest investors of public- private partnerships in the U.S. She serves on several noteworthy boards, including the Bipartisan Policy Center and the United Airlines Supervisory Board. Jane also has the distinction of serving as Chairman of the FAA's Management Advisory Council and the U.S. Department of Commerce's Investment Advisory Council.

Throughout her career, Jane Garvey has been recognized many times for her outstanding leadership and public service. These awards include the National Air Transportation Association's Distinguished Service Award, National Award of Excellence for Public Leaders, Woman of the Year Award for Women in Transportation and Women in Politics, and the 2017 Eno Transportation Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award to name just a few. Furthermore, in 2003, she was honored as one of the 100 Heroes in Aviation History.

Mr. Speaker, Jane Garvey is known for her deliberate collaboration and ability to bring stakeholders together. She is a person of outstanding character and I would like to once again thank her not only for her exemplary leadership and service, but also for her continued dedication to educating and supporting young, inspired professionals in careers of aviation and transportation. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand in support of this legislation, it is important to acknowledge that it not only addresses the needs of the residents who are cleaning up after Harvey, but it ensures that we will also avoid a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

What is important about this moment is the following: We are adhering to what is known as the national principle, and the national principle means that, if there is an earthquake in California, we rise to the aid of the people of California. If there is a hurricane in Texas, we rise to the aid of the people in Texas. If there is a tornado in Springfield, Massachusetts, as there was a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Springfield, Massachusetts. If there were horrific forest fires in the State of Alabama, as happened a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Alabama.

Now, why is that important? Because we don't check gender, and we don't check race, and we don't say: Is it a blue State or a red State or what is the political affiliation of those who are affected?

Instead, we say: The national principle ensures that this is about the American family in moments of great challenge and great difficulty, and we don't use the opportunity to remind people of what the budget might look like at that moment. Instead, we come to their assistance and we figure out how to pay for it later on.

So on this occasion, there is a very important consideration that is married, and it includes the idea that, with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats on this side, we are going to not only do what we are supposed to do in terms of raising the national debt, but we will come to the assistance of members of the American family, as I, a moment ago, described.

Now, let me point out something else as well. We need to stop playing games with the national debt limit. We had tax cuts here in 2001 and 2003 that cut Federal revenue to 15 percent of gross domestic product, despite the fact that the historic postwar norm average is closer to 17.5 percent. Actually, in some of those years before that, it rose to 18.5 cents on the dollar--a reasonable expenditure. But instead, as those numbers slipped to 15 percent, the argument became somehow that it was about future payments.

The argument over the debt limit is about expenses incurred, what we have obligated ourselves to with veterans benefits, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq. And even though I voted against the war in Iraq, we need to come to the aid of those veterans and those veterans hospitals, and we need to come to the assistance of those 1 million new veterans who were created because of it. And again, not asking questions, is it a blue State expenditure? is it a red State expenditure? It is about the national principle.

The idea that we would cast doubt on the full faith and credit of the United States to earn a few political points and to try to convince people that this is about future spending, it is not about future spending. This is about the credit card having come due for, in most instances, reasonable expenditures, not the least of which includes the obligations we have to Social Security, Medicare, and our senior citizens.

So this agreement that we have rendered today is a reasonable and sensible bipartisan achievement, and we should use this as an example and as a template for what we might do going forward to address many of the challenges that are going to confront the American people.

And be assured of this: Whether it is in Florida or it is in Houston, the expenditure requirements here are going to bulge, and we should not be dismissive of that. So raise the debt limit and come to the aid of the American family today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1843, the Restraining Excessive Seizure of Property through the Exploitation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Tools Act--more simply, the RESPECT Act.

Fundamentally, this legislation is about stopping abusive civil asset seizure practices. Too often, honest small business owners were treated like criminals and had their bank accounts seized by the Federal Government for making frequent deposits from cash sales.

The law at issue today is the Bank Secrecy Act, which set up new reporting requirements for certain activities, like depositing more than $10,000 in cash. The purpose of the law is to limit criminal business activity conducted in cash, money laundering, drug transactions, and criminal enterprises. Thus, systematically depositing amounts just short of this threshold, is deemed an illegal attempt to structure bank transactions to avoid the reporting requirement.

Over the past 2 years, a number of law-abiding small businesses with high volumes of cash sales testified before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight describing just how this law was being applied by the IRS and the Department of Justice to seize their bank accounts. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle immediately denounced this practice and sought to have the seized amounts returned.

In October of 2014, the IRS changed its policy on enforcement. Now it only will seize funds of taxpayers where the money is being deposited from an illegal source. H.R. 1843 codifies this policy change, excludes interest received by taxpayers on the return of seized property from tax, and provides notice and hearing rights to taxpayers.

The IRS, however, is only one side of the issue. United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions also must act to right this wrong against these small business owners. The IRS referred 255 petitions to the Department of Justice from small business owners seeking the return of their property. As of June 2017, the Department still had over 180 petitions to review. The Department of Justice should and must work faster.

I thank Congressman Roskam, my friend; and the Democrat lead cosponsor, my friend as well, Congressman Joe Crowley, for their hard work on this legislation; and also the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, John Lewis, for his leadership on this issue.

In closing, I want to take a look at how the position taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice affected a small bakery in Connecticut. For almost 100 years--three generations--the Vocatura family has operated a bakery in Norwich, Connecticut. They sell sandwiches and fresh bread, lots of low-dollar purchases. Until recently, they didn't accept credit cards; so most of their business was in cash.

According to press reports, between March 2007 and April 2013, the Vocatura brothers made hundreds of deposits in amounts ranging from $7,000 to $9,900. The bank tellers told them that they had to fill out lots of extra paperwork for deposits over $10,000, so the Vocatura brothers made sure to deposit their receipts more often. They didn't realize they were breaking the law by consciously avoiding making deposits over $10,000.

In May of 2013, the IRS enforced the structuring laws and seized the bakery's checking account with more than $68,000 on hand. The IRS held on to the Vocatura's money for 3 years without ever bringing a case before a judge. The brothers filed a motion, demanding the return of their money; and in 2016, the IRS capitulated.

This story is similar to others that we have heard. This legislation would ensure that no other small business is put in this position. I urge support on both sides of the aisle for this legislation.

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

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

Before I introduce the primary cosponsor of this legislation, I want to respond to something the previous speaker said.

Commissioner Koskinen said a number of times in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee that he doesn't write the law. That is the question that is in front of us at this moment. He says that the IRS follows the law, which we expect agencies to do at the behest of those who are duly elected.

So in this instance, I would suggest that while we don't like what the IRS has done in these particular examples that have been correctly cited by both sides, we also have the obligation to alter, change, or amend the law so that this doesn't happen to the innocent going forward.

So this was not simply about the Commissioner or IRS agents waking up one day and saying: What kind of havoc and peril can we create today? It was instead the prescription for law that we have offered to them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is a primary cosponsor of this.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a good step in the right direction. I hope that we will also encourage the Department of Justice in addition to what we are attempting to do here. As Mr. Roskam knows, they are part of the challenge in front of us as well, but I think this is a certain, forthright step on behalf of those who have been maligned in terms of reputation and their business activities in this moment.

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