John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Patricia Zetah of Vacaville, California, who has dedicated many years to the public education system, continuing to volunteer after her retirement. Ms. Zetah retired as a school principal from Travis Unified School District, having worked as a classroom teacher, reading specialist, program manager, and vice principal. During her time as a teacher, Ms. Zetah went above and beyond what was required of her. She served as a mentor to many new teachers and provided professional development workshops for others throughout the district and state. She served as President and board member of the Solano County Reading Association and to this day volunteers giving reading tests at Center Elementary School. Ms. Zetah currently serves as President of the local chapter of the Delta Kappa Gamma Honor Society for Women Educators, where she organizes charitable programs to benefit children's education. For the past seven years she has worked with St. Mary's Church and Vacaville Unified School District to put on Education Forums where participating children receive free books. Ms. Zetah is so devoted to this project that she has donated hundreds of her own books. Through both her career and her volunteer work, Patricia Zetah has demonstrated her dedication to children's education.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Christine Ponce of Woodland, California, who has dedicated 27 years to California's agricultural industry. She has worked cultivating many crops, ultimately becoming California's first female rice miller. In that role she managed many facets of rice production, ensuring that the plant operated at full capacity. In her 27 year career she overcame many challenges--from low wages to serious injury--and inspired many women that they too could pursue a career once considered only for men. A proud descendent of a Bracero, Ms. Ponce has strong ties to the California agricultural community. In her time as a rice miller she helped advocate for the rights of agricultural workers by serving the local chapter of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. In addition to working long, demanding hours, she took time to serve as a secretary for the ILWU Local 150. Ms. Ponce's long and distinguished career has demonstrated her devotion to California's vibrant agricultural community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Kate Mellon-Anibaba of Davis, California, who has made it her mission to bring people together in the name of tolerance and spread support for marginalized groups within her community. Following this year's attacks on Muslim communities throughout California, Ms. Mellon-Anibaba organized an event she called a ``Statement of Love.'' Her idea was to bring people together to show their support for Muslims in her community. In response to the hateful words and actions she saw directed at certain minorities, Ms. Mellon-Anibaba created her own demonstration of support, solidarity, and acceptance. She was determined to make a positive impact in her community, and she succeeded. Following a particularly disturbing attack on the Islamic Center right in her own community, she brought together over 1,000 people to show their support for their neighbors. She helped raise tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for repairs to businesses and places of worship targeted by hate-driven vandalism. Ms. Mellon-Anibaba brought people together to show their support, tolerance, and acceptance of a marginalized community within their community. Her message of peace, tolerance, and support has spread to surrounding communities and inspired similar demonstrations of solidarity. Her determination to bring her community together in the face of hatred is inspirational.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeannie Klever, who has an extensive record of service in Sutter County, California, which she has called home for the past 27 years. Jeannie embodies the qualities of a community activist and public servant, and we are proud to honor her today. Growing up in the 60's, Jeannie experienced a mixture of gender and racial inequalities which influenced and shaped her career choices. Her activism began at an early age when during school she protested an end to the Vietnam War. She also advocated for more on-site tutors for students of color and when met with opposition, Jeannie volunteered as a tutor through the rest of her school years. She strongly believes education was and remains the path out of poverty. Jeannie's desire to help families with special needs children was due to the challenges her family endured after her brother was diagnosed with severe autism. She operated a Family Resource Center that delivered support services and resources to families of low income and special needs adults and children. She taught self-advocacy for the local school's individualized education programs and medical service needs students. Jeannie's community and public service involvement is extensive. Jeannie has been a member of and continues to support several nonprofit organizations. For the past 15 years, she has sponsored an annual Art Contest for Sutter Union High School students. In 2008, Jeannie joined the local Democratic Party's central committee as a way to increase community engagement where she served three terms. In 2013, Jeannie joined the U.S. House of Representatives as my district representative serving Yuba and Sutter counties until her recent retirement. Jeannie continues to volunteer in the community and helps families in need when she can. Jeannie has learned to appreciate the art culture and enjoys mixed media arts as a way to relax. She and her husband Dale are enjoying family time with their children and two grandchildren.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize K. Patrice Williams, who has dedicated her twenty-year career to strengthening small business in Solano County, California, and her advocacy illustrates her talents as a true public servant. She is currently the principal advocate for BrandGov; an agency offering targeted outreach, messaging, social media marketing and more to small businesses, non- profit organizations and government entities in the Solano area. K. Patrice's experience as an activist has given her a deep understanding of economic and workforce development, infrastructure, energy and transportation challenges and a business approach understanding of proposed solutions. Working in partnership with public and private organizations, Solano College Small Business Development Center, Solano College Workforce Development Center and Solano College has allowed her to develop a strategic plan to diversify and maximize Solano County's local economy utilizing stakeholders as a resource. K. Patrice's professional experience includes Chief Brand Strategist for Brand Gov.; she was an Adjunct Professor at Napa Valley College; Director of Marketing for WH Holdings LLC, Manager for DoubleClick, and Team Leader-Business Development for IBM. She holds a Juris Doctorate, Business Concentration from San Francisco Law School and a Bachelor of Arts, Economics, Marketing Concentration from Sonoma State University.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jaswinder Sandhu of Sutter County, California, who has spent her career focused on improving the lives of people in her community. At a young age, she joined her farmworker parents in the fields to earn extra money during the summer. It was during those times that she realized the plight of the poor and became determined to make a difference. Jaswinder's passion to help others has always been her priority. Having left a job in the private sector in 2003, she began her career as Site Manager for Mahal Plaza, a low income multi-family farm labor complex in Yuba City. Since then, she's been credited with securing $313,000 in grant funding to build a safe passage route for children from Mahal Plaza as they walk to school. She also implemented several community programs and services at the property, including a community garden, day care, and ESL and exercise classes. She also offers Mahal as a venue for community gatherings such as the annual National Night Out, which is one of the most largely attended community events in Yuba City. A testament to Jaswinder's commitment to the community and her excellence in property management, she was honored as Site Manager of the Year for Farm Labor Housing for the State of California. In 2011 and 2014 Jaswinder was presented with the national award for excellence in Washington, D.C.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cathie Wicks, whose entire professional career has been spent in Yolo County, California advocating to improve the quality of life for rural children, families, and communities. Cathie is the founder and immediate past Executive Director of RISE, Inc. (Rural Innovations in Social Economics, Inc.). Ms. Wicks has over 35 years of non-profit administrative experience, including extensive grant project development and supervision, rural program design, implementation and project based fund control experience. Cathie is also a lifetime mission-builder in innovative leadership programs for teens, with an interest in intervention models for motivated at- risk youth. Cathie's early work history includes raising sheep, which began as a hobby. In the early 1970's, she started her career in the anti-poverty upward mobility programs focused on continuing education and diversified education. She also co-founded a non-profit to leverage grants from outside the community. Cathie served as Executive Director of RISE for the next 25 years. Her work didn't stop there, Cathie integrated her grant writing skills to assist Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation in grant writing, policy development and programs designed to enhance the community. Cathie is the face of non-profit success in rural Western Yolo County, building programs, trends, strong organizations, and fiscal success modes that have improved the quality of life in rural communities. Cathie enjoys spending time with her children and grandchildren, still raises sheep with her son, enjoys golf and travels with friends, family and colleagues.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Catherine Morris, who has dedicated her 30 years in Dixon, California to serving her community. As the pastor of the Dixon United Methodist Church, she has had countless opportunities to serve her congregation as well as the community as a whole. Outside of her role as pastor, her passion has been serving the youth of the Dixon community. Through her work with Dixon Family Services, Dixon Advocates for Children, and the Safe Schools Task Force, Ms. Morris works to keep the youth in her community safe and provide them with opportunities for success. Ms. Morris' leadership also extends to Dixon's senior communities. She is an advocate for securing affordable senior housing and adequate senior transportation services. Her support for senior programs in her community is ongoing, and she regularly assists seniors in finding the programs and services which can best serve their needs. Ms. Morris is a devoted servant to the people of Dixon. Anyone who knows her will tell you that her generous spirit, endless energy, and genuine warmth make her a beloved and respected member of the Dixon community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Jody Samons of Willows, California, who has dedicated over 37 years to serving her community of Glenn County. She has touched the lives of countless people through her work and volunteer activities. In her current position as Glenn County's Community Development Director, Ms. Samons has secured over $200,000 in grants and worked with numerous companies to create over 200 new jobs in the area. Her overwhelming success in this role has had, and will continue to have, an undeniably positive impact on her community. In her volunteer capacities, Ms. Samons has worked to support the youth of her community by creating opportunities and guiding them to success. Ms. Samons was instrumental in the creation of the Orland High School Booster club which helped support youth athletic programs in her community. She has also spent many years supporting youth in FFA or 4-H programs in any way she could. Ms. Samons served for many years on the Glenn County Junior Livestock Auction Committee and went on to found a non-profit organization to support the program when its future was in jeopardy. She also served for 7 years on the Glenn County Fair Board and worked tirelessly to ensure its continued success. Ms. Samons has spent many years supporting the youth in her community and never passed up an opportunity to help out.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Judith Holzapfel of Orland, California, whose leadership and civic spirit has no bounds. Her service to country and community began when she enlisted in the United States Air Force after having graduated from Marquette University with a degree in nursing. Following basic training, Judith was stationed at Beale Air Force Base where she met her husband. Following the birth of her son, she began her civilian career working in area hospitals. After pursuing further education, Mrs. Holzapfel eventually became Glenn County's school nurse and continued in that role for the next 30 years. Her many years of work and dedication has made a difference in health education and quality of life for thousands of students and their families. After retiring from her many years of service to Glenn County, Mrs. Holzapfel decided to continue her public services. She ran for a position on the Glenn County Board of Education, and won by an overwhelming majority. Mrs. Holzapfel is an active member of many community service organizations throughout the county and devotes her time to helping youth, veterans, and the impoverished. Above all, as a mother, grandmother, community activist, and veteran; Mrs. Holzapfel is passionate and dedicated to upholding the values of her family, and of her country.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Christine Ivory of Live Oak, California, who has dedicated herself to serving her community by advocating for its agricultural industry. After serving on the Board of Directors for the Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau for six years, she is to become its President. She has immersed herself in the issues of the agricultural community by serving on eleven of the farm bureau's committees. In her work at the Yuba Sutter Farm Bureau, Ms. Ivory takes particular pride in educating youth on the importance of agriculture. She has been instrumental in maintaining and growing her community's agriculture education programs, such as FFA and 4-H. Ms. Ivory is also committed to the preservation of agricultural lands and serves in many organizations working towards this goal. She dedicates her time to many community organizations providing for economic development and community improvement. Through her extensive involvement in the agricultural industry and many service organizations, Ms. Ivory has demonstrated that she is invested in the Yuba and Sutter county communities.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Barbara Graham of Vacaville, California, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and boundless giving of herself to the betterment of others. A woman of great faith, Barbara has been a pillar of the Vacaville community for many years. In the late 80's, she with husband and co-pastor, Willie Graham, founded the Christian Body Life Church in Vacaville where she serves and has served as Sunday School Teacher, Preacher, Choir member, Head of the Women's Department, and servant to any needy family of the congregation. In 1999, Mrs. Graham answered the call to assist the Vacaville Police Department in establishing resource for victims of domestic violence. This program provides food, clothing, counseling, and many other free referral services in collaboration with city and county services. Since 2013, Barbara has also served as the Chapel Coordinator for David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base where she oversees hospitality and all aspects of daily operation and church services. Barbara is a Board Member of Safe Quest Solano, a domestic violence shelter for women and their children, and was also integral to establishing the Supervised Visiting Care Program in collaboration with the Solano County Courts to provide safe spaces for troubled families to have visitations and promote positive joint custody child exchanges.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara (Babs) Cotter of Yuba City, California, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and possesses a deep desire to help others in the community. Barbara Cotter, a retired educator dedicated her entire career doing what she loved best; making a difference in the lives of elementary school children. Her career spanned over a period of 38 years; 33 in the Yuba City Unified School District. As an elementary school teacher, she was inspiring, beloved, and revered by her students and fellow teachers alike. In 1986, after surviving a life threatening medical diagnosis, she had an overwhelming desire to give back to a community that helped her through her recovery. She became a Reach to Recover coordinator, and eventually a board member for the American Cancer Society. Barbara's heart of service didn't stop there, she also volunteered for the Community Memorial Museum of Sutter County, the State Convention Planning Board for Philanthropic Educational Organization, Middle Mountain Foundation, and Girls on the Run. In 2009, Barbara Cotter was honored with the Caroline S. Ringler Perpetual Service Award for outstanding service to the Museum and has been appointed to a lifetime position on the Museum Commission.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Anna Eaton of Vacaville, CA, who exemplifies the qualities of selfless service and possesses a passion for serving our youth. Since 2013, Anna has distinguished herself as the Executive Director of the Vacaville Neighborhood Boys & Girls Club where she helps provide a safe and caring place for youth to learn and grow. During her tenure, she has expanded the program to five sites and significantly enhanced the club's focus on support and mentorship of the members as they are prepared for future life success. Ms. Eaton was also founder of Starbound Theatre, a recreation based youth program, helping to bring the joyful experience of theatre to the at-risk and diverse youth of Fairfield, Vacaville, American Canyon, Dixon, and Napa. Ms. Eaton also serves in shaping strategic groups within Vacaville Unified School District to address future programs and curriculum, as well as be the catalyst for three youth summits for teens in the Will C. Wood Interact Club. Anna also serves on the Board of Directors for the Vacaville Rotary Club as the Youth Services Director and advisor to the Will C. Wood High School Interact Club. Anna was born in Vietnam and came to America as a young child with her family as they escaped from Saigon as the United States Forces withdrew. She is a proud mother of four and proud American who dedicates her life to giving back to the country that has afforded her so many opportunities. ``Life is more meaningful when we evolve into a purpose greater than ourselves.''

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Albert O. Orta for his selfless service to our nation. Albert Orta's extensive career began in 1947 after completion of his entry level training at Lackland Air Force Base as a member of the United States Air Force. There, he tracked and noted weather cycles. Soon thereafter, he was promoted to work on the base's radar and communication equipment as an electronics technician. After his service with the United States Air Force, Mr. Orta continued to serve his country as an engineer with the United States Department of Defense at Lackland Air Force Base. His talents for engineering were well recognized and his responsibilities increased. Early in his career, he found himself traveling to well over fifty countries briefing Commanding Generals and U.S Embassy Ambassadors on communicative data and command post installation projects on behalf of the United States Military. His missions took him to Europe, the Philippines, Indo-China and to countries in Africa and South America, just to name a few. Mr. Orta also worked on military aircraft as a radar engineer and found himself assisting on the improvements and installation of radar systems in the early B series military aircraft: B29, B36, B47 and B52. Mr. Orta's work was so noted as a leader and accomplished engineer that he was assigned to equipping and testing radar systems in the early F series military aircraft: F84, F86A, F89, F102 and F106. His proud accomplishment was his role as the lead engineer in the development and installation of new radar technology for the United States Air Force's F102 Delta Dagger, a $6 million project at the time of his assignment. Mr. Orta's outstanding accomplishments and his willingness to serve our nation faithfully and to the best of his abilities in all positions was recognized by President Jimmy Carter and a host of Generals and Ambassadors acknowledging his incredible service to our nation through his work with the U.S. Department of Defense. Albert Orta and Mary Louise Guerrero married in June of 1949 and are blessed with 12 children, 31 grandchildren, and 29 great-grandchildren. Throughout his career and travels he recognized that sharing stories of his travels were important life lessons. There is no greater devotion of a father who returned home from a mission to share the experiences he encountered of a different life, different culture and hardships to emphasize the importance of hard work, the importance of quality education, to learn to be resilient and to appreciate the freedoms we enjoy today. He stands proud that his children and grandchildren are successful in their own professional careers; some educators, leaders in the private industries, medical field, financial advisors, some with a heart for public service and some who proudly served our country in the military. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring Albert O. Orta for his distinguished career and his proud service to our country; and to Mary Louise Orta for her service in standing alongside her husband, supporting him and their family throughout his missions.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Amanda Walsh of Davis, California, who embodies the values of a great teacher, educator, and mentor, and displays unparalleled dedication to her work. For Ms. Walsh, teaching is not just a job, but a calling. As an educator at Pioneer Elementary school, she has a positive and lasting impact on the children she teaches every day. Ms. Walsh is dedicated to the overall wellbeing of all students, ensuring that they are safe, fed, and taken care of. She can frequently be found working late to keep parents up to date and involved in their children's education. Beyond her work in the classroom, Ms. Walsh finds many ways to serve her community. Over the years, she has been actively involved with the Parent Teacher Association and coordinated fundraising efforts for local schools. Ms. Walsh has volunteered her time for the Davis Little League and Davis Legacy Soccer Club. A mother of three boys, Amanda is always busy, staying involved in her sons' education, music, and sports activities. Between her roles as a mother and a teacher, Amanda is dedicated to the wellbeing and success of children.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Becky Marigo of Davis, California, who is committed to serving her community and has a clear passion for helping those who are truly in need. Through her work as a program supervisor and case manager at Davis Community Meals and Housing, Ms. Marigo helps homeless individuals find permanent housing. She coordinates with government agencies, private businesses, and charitable organizations in order to provide resources and opportunities to homeless individuals in her community. Her work has helped many individuals to move beyond homelessness and find work providing for themselves. In Ms. Marigo's work with Davis Community Meals and Housing, she not only addresses the need of a whole community, she also works to ensure that she meets the needs of the individual. With every person she serves, Ms. Marigo treats them with dignity, compassion, and respect. She has a talent for connecting with isolated individuals and helping them find comfort in their community. Once Ms. Marigo makes a connection with someone, she sees them through to success, ensuring that they have support every step of the way. Ms. Marigo's work helping those in need is a great inspiration and exemplifies what it means to serve your community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brynda Stranix of Yuba City, California, a pillar of the community who exemplifies the qualities of a true public servant. She is a proven leader who embodies a passion to help others. Brynda currently serves as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation. Brynda's passion to help the community thrive is reflected in her present and previous work experience in the field of economics. She joined the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation (YSEDC) in 2001 with 22 years of experience in administrative management, accounting and public relations. Since joining YSEDC, Brynda has worked tirelessly with local businesses as well as public and private community leaders to identify ways to improve and expand business in the area. Brynda takes great pride in her community; she currently serves in eleven officer roles on boards and commissions for economic development, and is a member of twenty-nine various advisory committees who deal with critical issues from healthcare to homelessness and women's issues. When Brynda is not busy attending a meeting, you will always find her attending a community event. Brynda was presented with the 2016 Athena Leadership Award for achieving the highest level of professional excellence for her contributions in improving the quality of life for others, especially women, in realizing their full potential. Brynda was born and raised in Yuba City and takes pride in raising three delightful grandsons.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara Beckworth, a community activist in Dixon, California, and small business owner with a heart of service and a strong desire to help others. She has been involved in nearly every organization and club in the Dixon area and has served in many leadership roles. Barbara's commitment and love for her community as a leader is reflected by her involvement in several committees and organizations. She was past Chair and Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she continues to moderate the candidate's forums, she sits on several scholarship committees for the students at Dixon High School, and she's also served as past president for the Dixon Chamber of Commerce and Dixon Downtown Business Association. Her desire to make Dixon a better place didn't stop there. She also is past president of Lambtown USA and is involved every year in the annual Dixon May Fair Parade. Barbara is a true civic leader. There are many words to describe Barbara: graceful, elegant, beautiful, but most of all she is simply the nicest person one would ever meet. She was honored with the Dixon Citizen of the Year in 1989 and is considered an icon in Dixon who is loved by all who know her. Barbara is also known for her beloved dress shop that was in Downtown Dixon for many years.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Baljinder Dhillon of Yuba City, California, who has dedicated her life to education. She currently serves as the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools. Her career began as a fifth-grade teacher at Tierra Buena Elementary School in the Yuba City Unified School District. After earning her master's degree she moved into administration, serving as the assistant principal at Tierra Buena and Barry elementary schools. She later became the principal at Rio Del Oro Elementary in the Plumas Lake Elementary School District. Dr. Dhillon is dedicated to finding ways to fund programs that benefit teachers, staff and students. She is credited with authorizing cost-saving measures for the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools office by becoming more energy efficient, she's authored proposals to fund the California Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Grant and partnered with the four county offices for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence Early Adopter Grant application. Dr. Dhillon received her Bachelor of Arts degree, Masters of Education degree in Education leadership and a Doctorate of Education from California State University, Sacramento. She was recognized by the California Superintendents Educational Services Association as Spotlight Leader for November 2016. Dr. Dhillon was also honored for her dedication and commitment by the Sikh Temple Gurdwara of Yuba City at their 37th Annual Nagar Kirtan Sikh Parade.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Payne, thank you so very much. You made a very, very important point, and it is one I know your State and Representatives from your State are very aware of, and we are in California. You said that for New Jersey here, you pay $1 in taxes to the Federal Government and you get back 77 cents. It turns out that California is in the same situation. We pay $1. I think we get back somewhere around the same, 70 percent back from the Federal Government. Similarly, the other States, upper Midwest, this area, Nebraska, Colorado, Minnesota, these States also wind up paying more. Then over here, Illinois and New York, Massachusetts, it looks like, and New Jersey down here, Connecticut, also, these States wind up paying more. It turns out that the program proposed by the Republicans is to further harm these particular States by taking away--these are high cost States. They have big populations, and they have expenses that are associated with those large populations. They, the Republicans, want to eliminate the State and local tax deduction, which, as you said, not only burdens the individuals, but it is going to be seriously harming these particular States. Already, these States are paying more. If they are successful, they, the Republicans, are successful in eliminating the State and local taxes, the tax burden on these particular States, the big States, is going to go up, and the benefit will continue to flow to the States with lower populations. And you can see that on this map, because the rest of the Nation is red, meaning they receive more money than they pay in taxes. So this is a particular problem. I am not going to say this is the only problem because you raised the issue, also, of the top 1 percent getting 80 percent of the tax break, but this is a very interesting map that is really not understood by our colleagues here. Down here in Alabama and Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and so forth, relatively low tax States, they are actually subsidized by the high tax States; and so the elimination of State and local taxes increases the taxes on the high cost States already, who are already paying more than they are getting back from the Federal Government, so their burden is further increased. We have got a fight on our hands.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, an interesting week out ahead. As we begin this week, as we look at the budget for the United States of America, as we look and prepare to deal with the tax cut issue, we really ought to start that discussion with a clear understanding of what our goal is. I often use this when I talk here on the floor because it is foundational. It is foundational to what I believe we should use to test the various pieces of legislation that come before us. This would certainly be applicable as we look at the question of the Republican budget, which will be on the floor in the next couple of days, perhaps as early as tomorrow, and, of course, the tax cuts beyond. Here it is. This is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt--FDR. This is actually etched into the marble at the memorial for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I came across it one day, and I think it is a very good criteria to judge. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' Using this as the criteria to judge the Republican budget and the upcoming tax reform or tax cuts, we would have to judge both as a miserable failure. We are looking at a situation in which somewhere between $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion of revenue will be removed from the Federal Government. That is about somewhere between $250 billion a year to $500 billion of revenue. It doesn't mean a thing until you translate that into real programs. Keep in mind that to reduce the revenue of the Federal Government somewhere around $500 billion a year, you would have to remove 80 percent of the total money spent by the Department of Defense in all of the wars and all of the programs that they do in order to make up for that lost revenue. Alternatively, you would have to reduce almost all of the other discretionary funding. No, we wouldn't build a wall. In fact, we would have to fire all of the immigration authorities. The TSA would no longer be in our airports. There would no longer be any educational programs. There would be no programs dealing with all of the Coast Guard. There would be no programs for the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation. $500 billion of reduced revenue is possible as a result of both the budget, as well as the tax proposals that are coming before the House and the Senate in the days ahead. It may be just half that so we don't have to reduce all of those programs. This is a monumental, critical issue upon which, if we were to use this as the criteria to judge it, we would say: Wait a minute. What about national defense? Or we would say: Wait a minute. What about all of those programs that are necessary for our children, like the School Lunch Program? It is critical that we analyze this carefully. What does it do for the wealthy? Well, let's take a look at that. Now, given that the proposals are not yet defined down to the line and the text--but we do know from a general outline of our Speaker's previous proposals when he ran the budget here in the House and when he was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; and we have also President Trump's proposal--if it is the Ryan-McConnell-Trump proposal--it is the billionaires-first tax plan. It cuts the taxes for th wealthy. Eighty percent of the $2\1/2\ trillion to $5 trillion reduction winds up in the hands of the top 1 percent of Americans. Incredible. At the same time, what does it do for the rest of the public? Well, if you take a look at the detail in the budget that did pass this House and will be up for a vote in the very near future, it reduces Medicare and Medicaid by as much as $2 trillion. So you have got a reduction in revenue to be made up by a $2 trillion cut in Medicaid and Medicare. Who receives Medicaid? Across the United States, it is the working poor, and 60 percent of the total Medicaid budget is for seniors in nursing homes. So what we have here is a tax policy that cuts the taxes for the wealthiest of America's, the great 1 percent. They get 80 percent of the tax reductions. The rest of the public, 99 percent, will somehow share in the remaining 20 percent of reductions. Sounds like a bad deal? It certainly is, if you are to compare that against what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said should be our criteria for judging legislation. Now, it will be argued that the middle class will receive a tax cut. Well, some, perhaps, but not many. The majority of the middle class will actually receive a tax increase. How does that happen? The elimination of the deductions, State and local taxes, and other gimmicks that they have in it. So a family of four making somewhere around $50,000 could see their tax bill increase by as much as 380 percent. Whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? We are talking about a tax plan that does not even come close to meeting this criteria of judgment. Does it do more for the wealthy? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. We are talking about trillions of dollars of tax reductions for the corporations and the superwealthy. And what does the rest of the country get for those who have little? They get even less. So what we have here, when you consider that they are proposing as much as a $2 trillion reduction in Medicare--we are talking about the healthcare system for seniors--and Medicaid--the healthcare system for, again, seniors in nursing homes--about 60 percent of that money goes to those seniors. The remaining 40 percent goes to the working poor and the poor. That alone, together with this transfer of the tax reductions for the superwealthy, amount to the largest transfer of wealth ever in any legislation that has been proposed, and hopefully will not pass, but has been proposed in this House. It is even a greater transfer of wealth than we saw in the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Beware, America. Be wary. The hucksters are promising something that they are only going to deliver to the superwealthy and to American corporations. One more point I would like to make here is that often you will hear the argument that cutting corporate taxes will somehow lead to more jobs and that the employees will receive more benefits. Well, it turns out that a cut in corporate tax rates actually comes back to the top 1 percent. They will receive about 34 percent of the tax reductions that go to corporations. I have heard this argued by our Treasury Secretary, that if we are somehow to cut corporate tax rates, we will see the corporations investing in their workers. Wow. Wouldn't that be great? So we cut the corporate tax rate from some 35 percent down to 10 percent, or maybe 15 percent, as our President has suggested. All of those reduced taxes will flow to the corporation's bottom line after tax profits will increase, and, wow, they will create jobs, they will pay higher wages. What are the facts? What are the facts here? Well, first of all, most of it will not wind up in the pockets of the workers. It will wind up in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, of which 34 percent of that will be the top 1 percent. So, once again, if you look at the corporate tax reductions, it is going to wind up benefiting the wealthy, not the workers. There is another fact out there. In the 1970s, American corporations would invest about 50 percent--maybe slightly more than 50 percent--in capital improvements, building new factories, expanding the work floor, expanding the workers, workers' wages, benefits, and research and development. It is right there. If you take a look at the Fortune 500 in the 1970s, well over 50 percent was reinvested in American jobs, American workers, expanding the factory floor, expanding the business, expanding research and development, and growing the corporation. A remarkable and extremely important thing happened beginning in the 1980s, at about the time of the Reagan tax cuts, and continuing on, and is in place today. That has shifted. Today, American corporations do not invest in America, they don't invest in new capital, and they don't invest in R&D. Ninety percent of the after-tax profits in the Fortune 500--most of the Fortune 500, or many of them--wind up in stock buybacks and executive salaries or overseas, not in American jobs. If you are wondering why the American middle class has seen a flat and actually declining share of the GDP, it is because American corporations have shifted from investing in American jobs, American planting equipment, research and development; and they have shifted into manipulating their stock price by buying back their own stock, using the after-tax profits, some 90 percent of it, for executive salaries and for stock buyback. If you have got 100 stocks out there and they are valued at $10 apiece, you buy back 50 percent of the stock, guess what. You have doubled the stock price. By creating more jobs? By creating more profit. By increasing wages? By R&D? No. By manipulating your stock price by buying back that stock. Now, maybe there is somebody who would like to debate this point. Come on down. Let's debate it. The reality is just as I said. It is laid out there. Oh, there is another fact. One of America's largest corporations, the CEO said: Not to worry. You reduce my company's tax rate, and I will invest in our workers. I will invest in new plant and equipment. Interesting. In the last 8 years, the tax rate for AT&T is about 8 percent--not 35 percent, not 20 percent, not 15 percent, but 8 percent--and yet during that period of time, AT&T laid off 80,000 workers. So you are going to tell me lowering a major American corporation's tax rate is somehow going to lead to more employment, more jobs? Then tell me why AT&T, that has an effective tax rate of 8 percent over a 7- , 8-year period of time, laid off 80,000 people. So let's argue this point. Let's see what is going on here. We have before the House of Representatives and the Senate a fundamental question: Are we going to transfer even more wealth to the superwealthy by reducing their taxes and pushing off to the working men and women of America, the middle class, a higher burden? Along with that, we either increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion or $5 trillion, depending upon how this finalizes--that is the tax reduction; that is the lost revenue to the Federal Government--or are we going to make massive cuts? I am telling you what our Republican colleagues are promising us. Massive tax cuts for the superwealthy. The top 1 percent will get 80 percent of the tax reduction benefits, the remaining 99 percent of Americans will have to figure out how to share the small remaining 20 percent. The probability associated with those tax cuts, a significant reduction in programs that serve seniors--Medicaid, in nursing homes, the working poor, the Medicaid expansion program wiped out, Medicare reductions, all of these things--and quite possibly reductions in children's health programs, school programs, school lunch programs, environmental support programs, clean water programs, transportation programs, all the rest. So a tax cut for the wealthy is going to be a burden on American workers. Once again, if it happens, it will be the largest transfer of wealth from the working men and women of America to the superwealthy, as if we already do not have income inequality in America. It can be calculated that the income inequality in America today is the greatest it has been in any country for the last 500 years, dating back to when Spain was ripping off the Western Hemisphere taking all the gold, all the silver, anything else they could find, and transferring it to the Spanish Government, to the King and the Queen and their favorite folks. Income inequality is real. There are many, many pieces of this puzzle that we need to understand. One of them is the way in which certain States that have heavy burdens because they are urbanized States will be particularly impacted by the proposals that we have seen. Joining me tonight is the Representative from one of those States, New Jersey. Mr. Payne, would you like to comment on this extraordinary transfer once again that is in this piece of legislation, the way it harms your State and my State?

Mr. GARAMENDI. So we are ready.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, exactly so. This proposal that is going to be before the House very soon will simply make this inequality between the States even worse. Now, in Texas, this horrible problem down here in Houston, terrible-- similarly, with Florida--there will be even greater money flowing to those States that have seen these natural disasters, and so this is probably going to get even more so. If they are successful in doing away with the State and local tax deduction, this will become even more onerous for people in my State. Frankly, I cannot understand how my Republican colleagues from California could possibly support something that would substantially increase their constituents' taxes. So we will see. It is an interesting map. I came across it not too long ago, and I think I will use it even more. I appreciate and thank Mr. Payne for joining us tonight. I am going to keep putting this back up here. What are we here for? The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. I am going to toss another thing up here. Included in this Republican program is the elimination of the estate tax. If you want the wealthy to get even wealthier, then you move forward with the proposal that would shift the tax burden to the working men and women and away from those who are superwealthy. It has been said in an article in The New York Times that our President, under these proposals that he has put forward together with Mr. Ryan and Senator McConnell, that he would receive a billion-dollar reduction in taxes. We don't have his tax returns so it is hard to say that that is the case, but based upon past tax returns, it appears as though, yeah, one of the beneficiaries of all of this tax reduction is the President and his Cabinet. His Cabinet is made up of some of the wealthiest people in America, and they are not only going to receive a huge tax cut if it were to go forward and as proposed today, the 400 highest income taxpayers whose incomes average more than $300 million a year--and I think that is probably most of the Cabinet, and certainly the President has been in that if he is not there today--that range of income would get an average tax cut of at least $15 million. That is enough for a few rounds of golf. There is another piece of this puzzle, and I want to put this one up here. We are going to hear a lot of discussion about the estate tax and how somehow the estate tax harms American families, particularly American farmers. Now, I represent a very large agricultural district, and I said let's do some research and see across the broad breadth of America. Is it the American farmers that are harmed by the estate tax? It turns out that, yeah, there are some American farmers that are going to have to pay estate tax. There are 50 of them. There are 50 American farm families that would now be burdened by the current estate tax. Thousands upon thousands, millions of small farmers out there that the estate tax will never even come close to touching. It is $5.6 million of estate value for one, the spouse--another 5,000--so you have got $11.2 million for the family. It turns out it affects, perhaps, 50 families across America. The estate tax itself really only affects 5,200 families. When you hear all this talk about the death tax or the estate tax, as it is really called, ask the question: Who does that affect? Well, it certainly affects at least the President, Mr. Speaker. It affects the President and many members of his Cabinet. I can think of four right off who would be burdened by having to pay the estate tax. It is about $20 billion a year that is involved here. So you have got 2.7 million estates of which just two-tenths of 1 percent would actually be affected by the estate tax. So don't get all excited, America, about eliminating the death tax, unless you want to see the programs on which you depend: education, childcare, children school lunch programs--if you are worried about the border, you are worried about the Homeland Security agency and their ability to provide those men and women. So it is about $20 billion a year that would be eliminated from the Federal tax base if the estate tax were to disappear. If you care at all about income inequality, then you better keep the estate tax. Eliminate the estate tax, then the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and we will see even greater income inequality in the years ahead. So we have got some very heavy lifting to do here over the next couple of weeks. Before I come back and end this with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I would just say that the Democrats in this House and in the Senate really want to have tax reform. We want to reform the tax system. We know that the corporate tax rate of 35 percent is the highest in the world, or at least the industrialized world, and it does need to be reduced. We also know that there are very few corporations that actually pay the 35 percent. They are clearly burdened by a higher tax rate. We want to lower that tax rate. We want to do it in a way that encourages investment in the United States; that we go back to those days in the 1970s and early 1980s, when American corporations actually invested in expanding their business in the United States; that they would invest in capital formation, in plant and equipment, and hiring workers and paying higher wages, and engaging in research and development. There are ways we can do this in corporate tax reform. For example, we could provide a faster write-off depreciation for investment in American research and development, in American factories, in plant and equipment. We might even structure it in such a way that we would provide an immediate 1-year or 2-year write-off depreciation of capital equipment placed in American factories that was made in America. If you want to buy Chinese equipment for your factory, well, you are going to have to depreciate that over 15 years. There are ways in which--some very simple ways in which we can encourage corporations to invest in America by modifying the depreciation schedules. If it is an American-made piece of equipment, a Caterpillar tractor that is manufactured in America, write it off in 1 year. You want to buy a Kubota manufactured in Japan? Okay. You can write that off in 10 years. In other words, a positive encouragement for American-made equipment is just one of many examples. As we bring down the corporate tax rate, we build into it very specific things to build the American economy. There are other things, and certainly the wages are part of this, R&D, and all of the other elements. We Democrats want to engage with our Republican colleagues in that kind of tax reform. On the personal income tax side, yes, we are willing to talk about the tax rates, but we don't want to see the tax cut benefit go to the superwealthy that are already doing extraordinarily well. We want that benefit to go to the working men and women of America. We can expand their deductibles, and the Republicans are talking about that, but it is done in a limited way. And when you add back into it the elimination of State and local income tax and other things that they are talking about doing, it turns out that a very limited number of middle-income and low-income taxpayers are going to benefit, and many will find their taxes go up. We think that is wrong. As we look at this on the personal income tax side, we want to make sure that we are able to structure those personal income tax changes in such a way as to simplify, absolutely, and eliminate a lot of scurrilous deductions that only benefit the rich and the wealthy, and come to a program that is simpler, more straightforward, and really benefits the great American middle class, or as the President likes to say, let's make the middle class great again. We can do that through tax policy. That is what we want to do. I am telling you where we are headed today. We are headed today in a program in which our Republican colleagues are going to ignore our Democratic participation in this democracy, and they are going to ram through their own version of tax reform, which is simply a monumental tax decrease for American corporations, many of which are offshoring jobs. I can come back to that in a moment, and the high-income Americans as their taxes are reduced and their estate tax is eliminated. We think that is wrong, but they are not asking us how we can work together. They are not asking us to work with them. They have structured it through the budget deal that they can do it with 51 votes in the Senate, totally ignoring the Democratic Senators, and here in the House of Representatives, following a tradition that has been underway for several years now of simply writing a tax bill on their own, writing a repeal on their own, and ignoring the Democrats who we believe have a better deal for Americans. We believe that there is a better deal, that we can increase American pay by writing a corporate Tax Code that encourages investment in America, that encourages investment in workers, in worker training, worker preparation, and all the technical skills that a modern American economy needs. Yes, we do know there is a better way in writing the Tax Code. We also know that we can write a Tax Code that would lower the cost for those American corporations, businesses, and farmers who are investing in America. I have given some of those ideas already here a moment ago. Finally, we know that there is a better deal for Americans when we provide the tools for the 21st century, and this has to do with those tools of training and retraining so that the American workers are prepared to take the jobs that are out there. How do you repair that robot that has replaced you on the manufacturing floor? How do you repair it? How do you program it? That is a skill set that Americans are going to need. In my area, we have pharmaceutical companies that are technologically driven. Their laboratories need to be staffed by American workers who understand the intricacies of biology and the biotechnical industry, which is emerging in my district and in California. That is a skill set. We know that there is a better deal for Americans. We know that there is a better way for tax reform. We know that there is a necessity in America to build the infrastructure, the foundation of economic growth. But we also know that if our Republican friends are successful in reducing Federal revenues by somewhere between $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion, this is their proposal, revenues reduced by that, we will not have money for training American workers. We will not have money for the infrastructure investments, which are necessary to repair our bridges, build our roads, our airports and the like so that we have a foundation upon which the economy will grow. We know that. We have to persuade our Republican colleagues, so we are going to have to rely on the American people, just as we relied upon you when the repeal and replace legislation was before the House of Representatives and the Senate. The American public said: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. This is a bad deal, not a better deal, but a bad deal for Americans. So the tax reform or the tax cuts that are before us in the next weeks--the next 4 weeks--are a bad deal for Americans, and we are going to have to rely upon the American public becoming aware of what is going on here in Washington, and then speaking out and saying: No, no. Time out, folks. You are not going to screw us again. You are not going to do that again. We don't want the wealthy to get wealthier while we get poorer. So the American public, I would expect, will say, ``No, no way,'' just as they did when the great repeal and replace legislation was before Congress just a month ago. Mr. Speaker, I have covered the issue for the night, but I want us all to remember that the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is, rather, whether we provide enough for those who have too little. It is etched in the monument and the marble of the FDR Memorial, and it is a pretty good test of our progress here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we need to talk about. Important events are spilling upon Americans, just cascading upon us. We could spend hours and, indeed, should spend hours talking about North Korea. We should and will spend hours talking about tax reform, or tax reductions, or serious benefits for the superwealthy in America, and we will talk about that. We will debate that. But what is on my mind right now are the disasters that have befallen our American people. We think about what has happened over the last 11 months--floods on the East Coast, people forced out of their homes as the rivers rose in the Carolinas. We think about California, and the massive floods, and the 200,000 people who were evacuated from their homes in my district. We think about the recent hurricanes as they slammed into Houston, Florida, the Keys; and Hurricane Maria, as that hurricane devastated Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. These traumatic disasters are now in our memory, but they are also our reality. In California today, in my district, and in my colleague Mike Thompson's district, thousands of homes have been burned to the ground and people have died. These disasters are not new to America, and, over the years, we have set up a mechanism to deal with them. That mechanism is the firefighters across this Nation who respond, the emergency plans that have been put in place. I know during my period as insurance commissioner in California, I would often arrive at these disasters, some of which go back more than 30 or 40 years, and console people who will have lost their home and attempt to deal with their insurance issues. And I would always remind those who were in the path of these flames, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, to be prepared; that Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared. And now, in California, the same message goes out by the first responders and, indeed, by myself here on the floor of the House of Representatives: Be prepared. Be prepared to evacuate. Think about what it is you need to take ahead of time, those important papers, those scrapbooks, those photo albums, the dog, the cat; and when the time to go arrives, when that message arrives on your cell phone, or on the loud speaker from the police car out in front, obey it. Get out. Get out because you have already prepared. Yes, you should have had that insurance policy that you forgot, that flood insurance program. Yes, you should have had it. And all too often, we have to rely upon the generosity of charities, and, thankfully, they are there. And we also rely upon the Federal, State and county governments. Today, here in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate, as well as in the administration, we are beginning to gear up for yet another emergency appropriation to pay for the relief efforts that are underway. It is not going to be enough. It may take care of part of what occurred in Houston, or in Florida, or in the Keys. It is certainly not going to be enough to take care of the devastation in Puerto Rico. And I know, as the fires continue to rage in California, the appropriations that are being discussed, the emergency money for FEMA, will not be enough. While we are looking at these disasters and the billions upon billions of dollars that will be needed to rebuild the infrastructure, to rebuild the schools and hospitals, to pay the bills for the emergency work that is going on, this House of Representatives, this week, is in the process of trying to figure out how to pass a massive tax cut that will take trillions of dollars of revenue away from the Federal Government. It is estimated anywhere from $2 trillion to $5 trillion, depending upon the details, over the next decade, will not be available for the next disaster. Will it be added to the deficit? Possibly. Will those revenue reductions be balanced by cuts to Medicare? Yes. It is already being discussed. It is in the Republican budget. Will those $2 trillion to $5 trillion reductions in revenue be added to the deficit, or will we cut Medicare? They tried to do it in the Affordable Care Act, now they are coming back with a budget bill that would cause it to happen again--more than $1.5 trillion pulled out of the Medicaid program. And so there will be another disaster, a slow- building disaster of millions of Americans who will not be able to get healthcare. So, added on top of the burden of rebuilding America, the emergency appropriations to pay for the ongoing and past disasters, we need to be aware of the inconsistency of thought that is going on here. We are looking at an appropriation bill to pass something in the range of $15 billion, in addition to the previous $12 billion, which we know will not be sufficient to deal with the existing disasters; to say nothing of the billions of dollars that are owed to the counties and States for disasters going back, at least in California, 10 years, where the Federal Government has yet to reimburse the counties and State for the obligations that the Federal Government accepted, in some cases, a decade ago. In the face of all of that, we are going to reduce revenues to the Federal Government. Who gets the tax breaks? Well, here is a fact that the Vice President--excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I might--has suggested in California: that it is the poor that will get the tax break. Not so. They will get a little, to be sure. The middle class is likely to get a tax increase. But the real tax break, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of those revenue reductions. Eighty percent will flow to the top 1 percent of America's wealthy. So if you are concerned about income inequality, you better be paying attention. One must wonder: What is the logic of what is happening here? What is the logic? In the face of disasters that have occurred, historically, but more recently within the last year--floods in California, floods in the Carolinas, hurricanes, fires, tornados in the Midwest--in the face of all of that, we are going to massively reduce the ability of the Federal Government to respond. It doesn't make much sense to me, particularly when the beneficiaries of those tax reductions are the superwealthy. I think it is 2,500 families in America that would benefit from the elimination of the estate tax--2,000-plus families. It is some $6 billion to $9 billion of revenue lost every year so that 2,000 superwealthy families don't have to pay an estate tax. What is going on here? 600,000 low-income housing vouchers gone so that they can pass on their wealth to the next generation. Income inequality. In the face of the disasters, we need to stop for a moment as we begin the appropriations process for the FEMA emergency appropriations. We need to stop for a moment and consider the way these two things work together. I was in my district, Davis, California, for an event on Sunday, and I had several students--some of whom are my interns--come to me and say: What are you going to do about the student loans? There is a lot of happy talk around here that we are going to make higher education free. It is a great idea. It used to be that way when we were building the economy, when we knew, if we educated people, we would have a strong, growing economy. But tell me, in the face of a $2 trillion to $5 trillion reduction in the revenues to the Federal Government so that the wealthy can get wealthier, how are we going to ever reduce the cost of education to Americans? I don't know. Maybe somebody has the answer here. It doesn't seem clear to me that that could be happening. I am going to introduce a bill again this week--one that I introduced in the last session--that is kind of based upon the fact that Americans across this Nation are able to refinance their homes at a lower interest rate. It is a great idea. I have done it. I suspect many of the people who are listening, and certainly many of the Members of Congress, have refinanced their home to get a lower interest rate. But if you have a student loan that may have been from 5 or 8 years ago, or you are about to sign a document this fall for a Federally financed student loan, you cannot refinance that. Why? The Federal Government--there is $1.3 trillion of student loans out there. Nearly $900 billion of that $1.3 trillion is owed to the Federal Government. Why don't we refinance those loans? What if we were to do that? What would it mean to the students out there who are paying 5, 6, 7, 8 percent interest to the Federal Government that is able to go out and borrow money for 10 years at 2 percent? That is a pretty good margin. Even the fat cats on Wall Street can't have a margin that big, but the Federal Government does. So these students are paying these high interest rates so that the Federal Government can literally profit on their backs. That is a fact. Let's allow those students to refinance those student loans. Let's just see what happens. The Federal Government can borrow money at less than right around 2 percent--maybe a little less right now; add a percent for management fees, 3 percent; reduce all of the student loans, $800 billion, $900 billion of student loans. The government would go out and borrow it at 2 percent for 10 years and tell the students and those who are no longer in school: We are going to allow you to refinance. Take an interest rate that may be half of what you are getting now. By the way, why are we charging a fee to these students so that they could borrow money? Don't we want them to get an education? Don't we want them to be able to improve themselves? Yet we require a fee. So let's eliminate the origination fees. It is as though the Federal Government were some sharks out there dealing with home mortgages. No. We are dealing with students and their lives. If we can do this, maybe it is a couple of thousand dollars over the life of that loan that that student can then invest in their life and in their family. These are things that are possible. These are things that we ought to be doing. There is just a lot of happy talk around here: Oh, we are going to make education free. It would be good if we could. We could if we don't cut the Federal revenues by $2 trillion to $5 trillion over the next decade. Eliminate origination fees. Save low-income borrowing. It is all possible. The art of the possible ought to be what we are doing, not the art of enhancing those who are so wealthy already. I am going to paraphrase a fellow that is pretty important in American history. FDR said something like this: The measure of our success is not that we do more for those who have much, but, rather, that we do for those who have little. So what of this tax cut that we are going to spend this week and next week, this next month, and, according to our Treasury Secretary, we will be done by the end of the year? So what does it mean? It means maybe a small tax break for the working men and women of America. It means a huge tax benefit for those who are already wealthy; the elimination of the estate tax. It has been estimated by The New York Times that based upon our President's tax returns of a decade ago--by the way, he won't show us his present tax returns--that he could benefit to the tune of $1 billion with his proposed tax program. Not bad if you can have it. But is that good public policy? I don't think so. I don't think so; not in the face of the needs of America. We have enormous defense needs. We have been fighting wars in the Middle East for almost three decades now. There are other needs that we have for our military. You only need to listen to the Secretary of Defense and others as they talk about the need to rebuild much of the American military. The admiral responsible for the Pacific Theater says that he needs something rather important: munitions. Munitions. Wow. Yes, we have needs. We have students who are paying interest rates far higher than is necessary, unable to refinance their Federal student loans because the law doesn't allow it. But it is possible. In fact, it would make a lot of economic sense. These young men and women might actually start a family; might actually be able to buy a home or a car, start a new business, start a small business. There are a lot of possibilities. But the superwealthy need another tax break? I don't think so. I don't think so at all. And I don't quite understand the happy talk by our leaders of this administration who like to say: Not to worry. You are going to get to deduct the first $25,000. Well, yes. And then what? Oh, by the way, there is this 20 percent increase in the bottom tax rate, from 10 percent to 12 percent. That is a 20 percent increase. At the top tax rate, it goes from 35, unless you are able to maneuver into their little scheme where you can actually reduce your tax rate to 15 percent by being an LLC--a limited liability corporation--or a subchapter S corporation. Well, if you have the money to hire a good accountant and a lawyer, there are a lot of ways you can scheme and scam. And if you are a corporation, some of our largest corporations are able to hire the lawyers and the accountants and duck their taxes entirely. The list is long. The list is actually rather maddening. Apple, GE, AT&T, and others, the big ones, their tax rates are down in the zero or in the less than 10 percent range, and they want more. So Puerto Rico is devastated. My counties in California are facing rampaging fires, and perhaps as many as 2,000 homes have already burned. There will be another tornado and another hurricane. The question for us is: Will there be the money for the Federal Government to provide the support that we should do to help Americans rebuild? That is a fundamental question. I know that there is a better way. I know that in the proposal that our Republicans have put forth there will be less money for infrastructure. I know that if you want good-paying jobs, the construction industry has good-paying jobs. I know that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, the economy will grow by $2 or more and have a foundation for future economic growth. I know that when we rebuild the infrastructure of our communities that have been devastated by hurricanes, tornados, floods, and fires, that the communities can come back strong and the economies for those communities can flourish. I know that it takes a strong American Government to make that happen. Mr. Speaker, as we enter this week, my heart and thoughts go out to those millions of Americans who have been devastated by the hurricanes, floods, and fires; those people in my district who have lost their homes, and those who have lost their lives. I come here to the floor to say: Let us think seriously about what our obligation is to Americans, to those who have little, to those who have lost everything. What is our obligation to them? FDR was correct: The measure of our success is not that we do more for those who have much, but, rather, that we do for those who have little. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.