John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal and talk about what a fraud this whole process has become. I have great respect for the gentleman from Louisiana, but can you imagine never having a hearing on this. Let me tell you who would like to come to that hearing: Jim Baker, a devout, you know, liberal. You have George Shultz, Martin Feldstein, Greg Mankiw, Hank Paulson, Art Laffer, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, to name a few, who say that Congress ought to at least be open to looking at a carbon tax. According to the other side, it is a choice between a carbon tax or not a carbon tax. They don't talk about passing on the benefits to the consumer. They don't talk about the transition that is needed or strengthening the pension funds or even from the standpoint of an infrastructure bill that they have never addressed in 8 years while China moves ahead of us every single day. Nothing gets done in the House of Representatives. Here we have a fake debate and fake legislation that is going nowhere instead of actual, real hearings. We don't have real hearings on Social Security and its outcome. We don't have real hearings on gun violence. We don't even have real hearings here on the state of what is going on with this administration and the FBI and our intelligence people. This is the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. So if you see frustration on this side of the aisle, it is primarily because, in the most demonstrative democracy in the world, not even a hearing, a suggestion about bringing experts to talk about what this could possibly do. What a sham.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to require a Federal study on the financial impact of the disaster known as crumbling foundations that is plaguing parts of the Northeast, including my home State of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and with further study, we believe, it impacts much of the northeastern region of our country. This amendment simply asks for the Treasury to lead a joint study with our Federal regulators to assess the financial impact of this disaster and provide recommendations to help mitigate Federal and local losses, and help these suffering homeowners who, through no fault of their own, have experienced a catastrophic disaster. There is no one who has worked harder on this in our State of Connecticut than Joe Courtney. Joe has been a leader in this, organizing people in both the State and local arenas, as well as our two United States Senators Blumenthal and Murphy. Joe has led the way, and I have had the fortune, along with State Senator Tim Larson, to travel to South Windsor, East Windsor, and Manchester, Connecticut, and witness the devastation and the heartache that these homeowners go through. I know, looking out and seeing Mr. Young, he will remember what happened in the South with the famous, or infamous, China drywall. It is similar to that experience, where homeowners and individuals, through no fault of their own, experienced catastrophic loss. We have been working tirelessly on this effort and feel that this study, in fact, will reveal the impact that it will have on homeowners, many of whose loans and homes have been backed by GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and even as we project out into the future, having Federal bases there where this concrete may have been used that has impacted the people there in a dramatic fashion. As I indicated, nobody knows more about this issue and has studied it more thoroughly than Congressman Joe Courtney from the Second Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) to explain further the issue of crumbling foundations.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank Secretary Mnuchin again for his outstanding work, his understanding and empathy, and the prompt manner in which they have taken up what, as you can imagine for these homeowners, is just catastrophic in nature. We want to commend him and also the Tax Advocate as well for their testimony before the Ways and Means Committee on this very important issue. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2259, the Sam Farr Peace Corps Enhancement Act. This bill will improve the health, security and safety of Peace Corps Volunteers. Our Peace Corps Volunteers uphold American values and character abroad. They are often the first impression given to foreign nationals of Americans and put themselves in the most remote areas of the world where managing risk is a daily practice. The Sam Farr Peace Corps Enhancement Act will strengthen a volunteer's ability to effectively serve our country abroad by establishing more institutional protections I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. The Peace Corps was created to answer that powerful call from President Kennedy nearly sixty years ago when he stated, ``ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country''. Whether it is the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or Conservation Corps, national service is a vital ingredient to a healthy and prosperous nation National service provides vital skills of teamwork, responsibility and the ability to cross cultural and economic lines in societies. No one understood this better than my dear friend and former colleague, Sam Farr who this bill is so aptly named after. In his twenty-three distinguished years as a Former Congressman from California's 17th District, Sam Farr was often known as ``Mr. Peace Corps''. A former Peace Corps Volunteer himself, serving in Colombia during the early sixties; he was a tireless advocate for the Peace Corps Agency. He understood the importance of the work that the Agency and the volunteers were doing for America in the global arena, and the impact it has on not just the Peace Corps Volunteers, but the friendships and bonds they create in the countries they serve. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I thank Congressmen Joe Kennedy (D-MA) and Ted Poe (R-TX) for recognizing Congressman Farr, and introducing such an important and bipartisan bill that will truly benefit our volunteers.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to include in the Record, a eulogy of J. Brian Gaffney. Brian was an exceptional man, devoted to his family, his community New Britain, his state of Connecticut, his Nation, and of course Notre Dame. The world of politics where Brian and many of his peers came of age in was a world where loyalty was, and still is, a tremendous value. At his funeral service, the outpouring of the community had to be heartwarming for his beautiful and gracious wife, Mary Lou, and the entire Gaffney family. As they embraced a grateful public, the stories, the respect and the Irish humor were ever present, just what Brian would have wanted. I knew Brian but felt a special kinship to him from the stories told by Jay Malcynsky, his daughter Alicia, and his son-in- law Fritz. Brian was the kind of man that when he held court, you wanted a front row seat to hear him. It's hard to capture the impact, the complexity of a man and his expansive influence. It was done in exceptional form by former Republican Chairman Chris Healy. His remarks, his candor, his insights were the talk of the wake and captured the essence of a great American. ``John Brian Gaffney had as big and colorful a ride as any Connecticut politician over the last 60 years. He made New Britain a Republican town, he served locally and at the state Capitol, orchestrated the rise of a Congressman and then Governor, knew Presidents by name, ruled like a true state Party chairman, practiced law, raised six children with his wife of 5 years, Mary Louise, and got in lots of golf at Shuttle Meadow. Gaffney left this earth at age 85 this past week and with it a record for the ages during a time where honor, loyalty and laughter were the currency of the political realm. He was a New Britain guy, through and through and never lost his bearings about the important things--friendship, family and loyalty. His life reads like a novel by Edwin O'Connor--a graduate of Notre Dame University and Fordham Law School, who joined the family law practice and apprenticed in the close quarter combat of Hardware City politics. Thomas J. Meskill, also a local lawyer, who was tagged by one columnist during the day as all ``Irish Fight'' lured Gaffney into running for the Board of Alderman when he took another shot at the Mayor's office. They both won and within eight years, they had lined themselves up to take on the formidable Democrat machine, led by John Bailey, a former National Democrat chairman and merciless operator by which all others were measured. Meskill and Gaffney proved more than up for the task at hand, hardened by their City Hall experience. Once, Mayor Meskill had city police haul recalcitrant Democrat Aldermen back to a meeting when they walked out to deny him a quorum. By late 1969, Gaffney's plate was full and overflowing. He had a part-time job doing Congressional field work for Meskill, practiced law, helped Paul Manafort Sr. hold the Mayor's office, had a seat in the state House representing the 29th District and chaired the local town committee. Democrats had owned the governor's mansion since 1955 and 1970 would be the first election after Richard Nixon's close Presidential win. The seat was open but there were some divisions in the Democrat ranks, particularly for the U.S. Senate race where a liberal challenger, Rev. Joseph Duffy challenged a wounded incumbent Thomas Dodd, the latter who ran as an independent candidate. The 1968 riots had scared many Connecticut cities, frightening suburban voters while the Vietnam War had divided Bailey Democrats from the growing Left. Gaffney got the word out that Congressman Meskill would be willing to run for the top job and started beating the drums. But there was strong competition in State Senate Minority Leader Wallace ``Wally'' Barnes of Bristol and state Sen. T. Clark Hull of Danbury. Meskill won the convention, watched the well-oiled delegates pick Hull as his running mate and avoided a primary. Bailey called Meskill ``Tough Tommy'' a moniker any Republican at that time would gratefully accept. If Meskill was the champ, Gaffney his corner man, fixing the cuts, wiping the sweat and telling his man to get back in and finish it. Meskill recruited and attracted a deep bench of young, eager Republican operatives--known as the Kiddie Corps.--including two who themselves would become state Party chairmen, legislators, power brokers, lobbyists and gifted players at the game. They were hungry and eager--and Gaffney put them to work. The Corps organized at the local level while Gaffney cajoled local GOP leaders, kept Meskill on a Conservative message of smaller government, less spending and business- friendly policies. In those days, patronage wasn't an obscenity and he used it appropriately as an effective incentive. Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew made personal appearances, including a famous parade through the streets of Hartford. After Meskill defeated U.S. Rep. Emilio Q. ``Mim'' Daddario and U.S. Rep. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., defeated Sen. Dodd and Duffy, Gaffney was rewarded with the state Party chairmanship. In two years, Nixon's 49-state landslide would sweep Republicans into complete power in the legislature. As Meskill governed, Gaffney made sure it ran as smoothly as possible. In March 1974, everything that went well in 1972 turned upside down. With Watergate in full bloom and an urge to return to law, Meskill announced he would not seek a second term. While some blamed a freak ice storm that Meskill was slow to appreciate while out of state on vacation, the national storm clouds were darkening rapidly. When Republicans nominated Bob Steele, Gaffney stepped down as chairman. In October, Meskill appointed Gaffney to the bench over the protestations of the Connecticut Bar Association. Gov. Ella Grasso didn't reappoint him three months later, so Gaffney went back to law. In 1984, he and George Bennett formed Gaffney-Bennett and Associates. State lobbying was expanding at a rapid clip and along with a young Jay Malcynsky, also a New Britain lad, they came up with a winning formula of contract lobbying handled by both lobbyists from both Parties. Every significant Republican over the last so years coveled or depended on Gaffney's counsel or high sign--Nancy Johnson, Stewart McKinney, Weicker and John G. Rowland not to mention scores of others who never measured up. Almost to the end of his storied life, Gaffney kept his hand in the game, as honorary chairman of statewide campaigns for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, delegating to a new group of operatives and making sure the vote got out. Even as he spent more time on his short game and his grandchildren, Gaffney would pick up the phone to call a Republican insider to find out what was going on--who was up, who was down and who the next up and comer was. Like anyone in the game that long, Gaffney made his share of enemies who felt he hadn't been straight with them or was expedient in his relationships No one's street is always clean, but most of those who complained the loudest were masking their own failures and looking for a convenient excuse to explain their defeat. I enjoyed my chairman-to-chairman conversations with Gaffney, who always returned the ``Mr. Chairman'' salutation without hesitation. He knew how to work people and I was as thrilled as anyone to hear it. When we would share a timeless frustration that all chairmen have endured, he would let out a loud roaring laugh only the Irish can muster. In going through the clips, I noticed a profile done by Hartford Courant report Michelle Jaklin, who quoted why a long-time Conservative GOP operative was supporting George H.W. Bush for President in 1988 and not her previously preferred choice of Jack Kemp or Pierre ``Pete'' Dupont. ``Because Brian Gaffney asked me to,'' she replied. ``Any loyally you give Brian, you get back in spades. People have been with him for years and years.'' Gaffney represented a time when Democrats and Republicans would beat each other senseless but when the whistle sounded, they picked each other up, wiped away the blood, picked up the loose teeth and went to have a cold one to make sense of it all. He loved the game, the competition and the people up and down the line who made politics serious and fun, and he did it by living by a code that put a high premium on being true to yourself and others in the foxhole. Gaffney knew how to use power during a time when you could. By the late 1980's, the role of the state Party had shifted to one of communication, back office and training. It no longer held the cards to make candidates, reward friends and punish the wicked. He was an Irish warlord, but with a sense of humor. His passing is the final chapter of a bygone era--for good or bad--but one that worked.'' It is my hope that the eulogy by Chris Healy will have future congressional scholars or those who peruse the Congressional Record understanding the rich life and contribution of J. Brian Gaffney. The whole Connecticut delegation joins me in honoring Brian and extends our sincere condolences to the Gaffney Family.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2018--I was not present for roll call votes 267 to 268 as I was required to be in Connecticut for a memorial service. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 267; and Nay on roll call vote 268.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 27, 2018, I missed rollcall vote 166, a Motion to Table H. Res. 856, a Privileged Resolution offered by Mr. Crowley of New York to create Select Committee to investigate the motivations and reasoning behind the forced resignation of the House Chaplain. I stand in full support of the Crowley resolution regarding the Speaker's decision to forcibly push the House Chaplain Father Conroy to resign. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall vote 166.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What a profiles in lack of courage this is today exhibited in the House of Representatives. But it does give us an opportunity, however limited the time is, to expose a lot of the myths, like this notion that the other side continues to perpetuate that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. News flash: it is the insurance that the American people have paid for. News flash: 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. News flash: the average women in this country, when they retire, get $14,000 annually from Social Security, and, for more than half of them, that is all they have to live on. Yet these bastions of courage on the other side would like to cut these programs not by coming to the floor of the House of Representatives and having a vote on it, not by having a discussion in a committee or even the semblance of a hearing, but somehow, as Mr. Neal said, with a mask on, decide that they are going to introduce an amendment where they will never, ever have to vote on what their constituents actually have to face day in and day out. These are American citizens who have paid through an insurance program, not an entitlement. It is called FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Whose contribution? The American people's contribution. If you want to vote to take it away, have the courage to bring up a bill and vote on it. How about we increase the benefits for the people of this country who need it?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the distinguished chairman from Texas for the very bipartisan nature of which this bill has come together, and that doesn't happen by accident. It happens because of the hard bipartisan work across the aisle of the staffs whom we work so closely with. It also means that we want to recognize Amy Shuart, Lara Rosner, Matt Russell, Anne DeCesaro; and from my staff, Kathryn Olson, Jason Kanter, Morna Miller; and Jill Hunter-Williams, who is with Danny Davis' staff; and the irreplaceable Sylvia Lee from my office as well. It is always an honor and pleasure to work with Mr. Johnson. He is, first and foremost, a gentleman. I look forward, later in this year, to traveling to Plano, Texas, where I hope we can have a hearing on Social Security in general. Mr. Johnson has a bill and I have a bill that both have the same goals in mind, and while there may be different approaches, I know that his great bipartisan spirit and his gentleman nature will provide the kind of debate and dialogue that is necessary around an issue so vitally important to all Americans as Social Security. This is America's greatest program and one that has never missed a payment and is often confused as being an entitlement when, in fact, it is the insurance that people have paid for and richly deserve. It hasn't been changed or modified significantly since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down and did that back in the early 1980s. It is long overdue, and what better person who epitomizes the values and virtues of Ronald Reagan and who comes from Texas and who also has a heart as big as that great State, and I know that we will be able to come to a resolution about this very important issue that we face. Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that it is not often, or perhaps more often than people would surmise, that we see this bipartisan cooperation. But it was Hubert Humphrey who said: The ultimate moral test of any government is the way it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. What Mr. Johnson has done today is to epitomize those very comments of then-Vice President Humphrey, and the Congress is responding. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018, which the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and I have introduced and on which the committee has held several hearings. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge our distinguished chairman. We on the Committee on Ways and Means are fortunate that we, in our midst, get to work daily with two iconic American heroes: John Lewis of Georgia and Sam Johnson of Texas. It has been my high honor to serve as the ranking member with this great American hero and dedicated public servant. We all know that Mr. Johnson is indicating that he will not be seeking reelection again. That is a great loss to the Congress and a great homecoming for people in Plano, Texas, and his family, who richly deserve this great American hero. He demonstrates that heroism daily in the committee by his compassion and concern for his fellow Americans. Much as he defended them in his service to the military, he defends them daily here in the United States Congress. As Chairman Brady pointed out, there is a great need within the payee system to address a number of the concerns, as the hearings which Mr. Johnson conducted revealed many of the inadequacies that existed. There are currently 8 million Social Security beneficiaries who have a representative payee to help manage their benefits, nearly half of whom are children. In many cases, we are talking about the most vulnerable of our citizens, many of whom cannot advocate for themselves. That is why our bill strengthens the number of quality-of-performance reviews by entrusting them to protection and advocacy organizations in each State. These organizations are embedded in the communities they serve and will be best equipped to flag and investigate instances where payees may be abusing their beneficiaries. Many of the State organizations have written letters of support for H.R. 4547, including Disability Rights Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record. Disability Rights Connecticut, Hartford, CT, December 13, 2017. Representative Sam Johnson, Chairman, Social Security Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Representative John B. Larson, Ranking Member, Social Security Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Larson: Thank you for introducing the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2017 (H.R. 4547), bipartisan legislation to improve and strengthen the Social Security Administration's (SSA) representative payee program. This legislation is necessary to create a permanent, independent system of oversight to protect Social Security beneficiaries from fraud and exploitation. It also addresses issues of choice by beneficiaries and decreases reporting burdens on families. As an employee of the Connecticut protection and advocacy system during the previous iteration of Representative Payee reviews, I experienced how important it was to conduct on site reviews of financial accounts but even more invaluable to meet Social Security recipients, interview them and see where they live. The reviews also informed other areas of advocacy conducted by the agency and would be an asset to Disability Rights Connecticut, the new protection and advocacy system for Connecticut. Disability Rights Connecticut's mission is to advocate, educate, investigate and litigate to advance and protect the civil rights of people with disabilities to participate, equally and fully in the social and economic life of Connecticut. As a protection and advocacy system we do this through information and referral, technical assistance, investigation, monitoring and advocacy. We also provide training, education and outreach to empower individuals to advocate for themselves and others. Again, thank you for your sponsorship of H.R. 4547. Please do not hesitate to contact me or refer your Connecticut inquiries to Disability Rights Connecticut. Sincerely, Gretchen Knauff, Executive Director.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, aside from that and because of Mr. Johnson's leadership, the bill before us today has the support of many advocacy groups, including the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, the National Disability Rights Network, the Association of Mature American Citizens, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I therefore urge my colleagues on both sides, as Chairman Brady has indicated, to join us in voting ``yes'' on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I will vote today to re-open the government and provide certainty to 17,000 children in Connecticut and their families who depend on the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The reality is that the Republicans control the levers of the federal government--the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch. While some of my Republican colleagues, like Senators Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham, have worked on a bipartisan solution, the Republican leadership has failed the most basic of their responsibilities--to lead and to keep the federal government open. While CR's are harmful in general, I will vote for a short-term extension only through February 8th as a sign of good faith as I believe it is better to negotiate with the government open rather than closed. If the Republicans renege on their commitments, it will be clear to the American people they can neither govern nor keep their word with regards to funding community health centers, opioid funding, protecting young people who were brought to this country as children from being deported, and funding for our military and domestic programs. This is the fourth CR that we have passed to keep the government open. Our military and federal agencies need a year-long budget in order to plan and to effectively execute the functions of government. My Republican colleagues have committed to coming to the table and working on solutions for the opioid epidemic, disaster relief funding, and a solution for the 700,000 DREAMers in the next three weeks. The United States government made a deal with these young people and despite the President's edict to deport them if solutions are not made in Congress, it is now on the Republicans to work with us, as they have promised to govern responsibly. I will hold the Republicans accountable for their promises and so will the American people.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, I missed rollcall votes 5-7 on the motions to adjourn from Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Grijalva. I was attending meetings off-campus and was not able to return for these unexpected votes that were not on the House schedule. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 5 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Espaillat, ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 6 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Gutierrez, and ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 7 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 2017 I missed roll call vote 710. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' or ``aye''.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 18, 2017, I was unfortunately not present for roll call votes 685 through 687. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 685 on the motion to fix the convening time; Yea on roll call vote 686 on passage of the STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and Transparency Act (H.R. 4375); and Yea on roll call vote 687 on passage of the Keep America's Refuges Operation Act (H.R. 3979)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to be here today, as we approach Christmas, and not look at this bill, knowing that we have honorable Members on the other side, who, this Christmas, will be sitting with their relatives, their family members, their mothers and fathers, their brothers and sisters, and knowing that this creates not just a $2 trillion debt, but the pay-for--the pay-for--out of the Medicare program: an automatic cut of $25 billion in a plan that was never debated. It fulfills a grand vision of Grover Norquist and the ideology that you took a pledge to. But what about the oath of office, and a pledge to the Constitution, and standing up for the people of this Nation, and the very elderly at this Christmas, and throughout the year, who will need our help?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office's accounting of the $25 billion that will be taken out of Medicare. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress Washington, DC, November 13, 2017. Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for information about the effects of legislation that would raise deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027 period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010(PAYGO; Public Law 111- 139). The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB. CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year window, without enacting any further legislation to offset that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard, showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150 billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion debit.) Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111 billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large accounts including low-income programs and social security, the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is, in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion, significantly less than the amount that would be required to be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https:// go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.) Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the estimated amount of available resources in each year over the next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay reductions required by the PAYGO law. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, Keith Hall, Director.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2017 I missed Roll Call vote 671. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record at a later time a notice from both the comptroller and the commissioner of Revenue Services for the State of Connecticut, who notes that a married family with a kid in college would see a $767 tax increase next year and a $1,667 increase in the year 2027. Mr. Speaker, we have already protested what we think about this bill, what they have done to this process, the stain that this is on this institution. 1986 has been cited. No public hearings. We had 30 hearings, 12 subcommittee hearings, 456 witnesses. We have none, and now you do a bill in double secret probation. You make Dean Wormer look good from ``Animal House''. This is what is wrong with this process here today. The cruelest cut is that you perpetrate a $25 billion cut in Medicare that you don't even have to vote on. That is the worst cut. Talk about a cowardly act in the night: a $25 billion cut to our seniors. No wonder the AARP has spoken out so strongly against it.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Several.