Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the time that they put in bringing rules to the floor that relate to a vast array of legislation that we deal with here. Today, we are talking about martial law so that we will be prepared to take up something that will open up the government and meet the needs of the American people. It is interesting to see the enthusiasm on both sides on these subjects because we have a long history on some of these issues. We have a long history and a commitment to CHIP. When we brought it to the floor when I was Speaker, when we first had a Democratic President who would sign the bill, 144 Republicans voted against that bill. But that is then. This is now. I think that now we are closer than the debate here would indicate. I think there is a path forward. I think that is how we have to be thinking about what is next. We all have our, shall we say, reputations for where we have been on certain votes about CHIP, about shutting down the government, and the rest, but let's put that aside. The challenge that we have right now is what is that path. That path has four corners to it. One of them is the caps parity. We have talked about parity. Other Members have talked about it. I am sure Mr. Hoyer did again today. It is about parity. If you are going to have increases in defense, we need the same increases in domestic. If that is what the Defense Department decides its missions require, then we want to be respectful of that. But we also know that in the domestic budget, one-third of the budget--34 percent--are security functions: Homeland Security, antiterrorism activities at the Department of Justice, Veterans Affairs, the Department of State. That is 34 percent of the domestic budget. We are saying that the strength of our country is not measured just in our military might--as important as that is and respectful of it that we are--but also in these security functions in the domestic budget. In addition to that, in the health, education, and well-being of the American people, which are also on the domestic side. So I think on the caps, we just have to get in a room and make those decisions. The challenge that I see is that it has been reported to me that there are those on the Republican side who have some unease in increasing the domestic budget because they know that they already had a big increase in the deficit in the tax bill and are reluctant to add any more investments for fear that it would increase the deficit. However, these investments in research and development, in education, and in infrastructure, really bring revenue to the Treasury, so they help decrease the deficit. In fact, I think most economists will tell you that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the investments in education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, and lifetime learning for our workers. So in that spirit of saying they want more in defense, and we are respectful of that, we need more in domestic, and hopefully you will be respectful of that. I think that we can come to terms on that. And then there is the question of pay-fors: How is that--or is it-- paid for? So that is one thing. That is just you sit down, you negotiate, and you get it done. I am not an appropriator. Mr. Hoyer is an appropriator; Mr. Clyburn is an appropriator; Mrs. Lowey, as our ranking member with such distinction; and Mr. Frelinghuysen on your side. Appropriators know how to get it done. They know the numbers. They can do the math, left to their own devices. It is when other factors weigh in that it becomes more challenging. Let's just say: let's see if we can get that done, because that will be more dispositive of shortening the time between where we are now and if we get a solution. The DREAMers are a value to us. We told the President right from the start that it is not an issue, it is not a bill, it is a value of who we are as America. I think that we can come to terms on that subject as well. But make no mistake, if there never were one DREAMer in our country, we still would have this challenge on the money side of the debate. Let's not try to assign responsibility to the DREAMers for the fact that we don't have the increase in defense. We are willing to go to that place as we go, honoring parity. That is what we agreed to in the budget agreement. That is what the Speaker agreed to as chair of the Budget Committee. Why are we departing from that and then blaming it on the DREAMers? And the security, we all believe in securing our borders, North and South. We can come to terms on that, if we really believe that we should. None of us believes in a--well, I can only speak for our side of the aisle--shutting down the government. We believe in a government role in meeting the needs of the American people. We subject any initiatives to do that to the harshest scrutiny because we know that the American people need effective initiatives to meet their needs. Let's take a deep breath. Let's calm down. Now, for example, Mr. Welch led the way with a large number--100-some Members of the House--signing a letter to the President. I think it is really important for you to realize this. When we said we wanted more domestic investment, here is what we were talking about. We were very clear to choose only those initiatives that are bipartisan that would pass on the floor with strong bipartisan support. That means preserving the Bipartisan Budget Act, as I discussed, and delivering urgently needed resources to communities fighting the opioid epidemic. That is what we said to the President. This is one of the increases on the domestic side: addressing the opioid epidemic. Rescuing heroic veterans, who are facing a dire shortfall at the VA. Opioids. Veterans. Supporting access by funding CHIP, community health centers, medical education for primary care doctors--the package that always went together. Preserving America's endangered pensions. We had bipartisan support for that. That needs more discussion, but we want to do it. Providing additional disaster recovery for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Florida, California--States impacted by wildfires. There is nothing partisan about this, in addition to protecting our DREAMers, which, again, has bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate. We would want to pass the Dream Act, as well as then engage in the discussion on the borders, which we are completely open to. This is not a: Just give us some money. It is shared values-- Democrats and Republicans--and we are saying to the President: Help us on this money side of the debate because it is so very important. We can talk all day about who said what about what and all the rest of that. I don't think shutting down the government is cool, as Mr. Mulvaney said, but let's leave him to that. We do know that government by CR is not the best way to go. I think that we could take one day--take this evening--sit down: Caps parity; pay-fors--probably easy; there is not a whole lot of opportunity there, but whatever it is--and DACA, the DREAMers. Again, if there never were one DREAMer, we would still be having this discussion about the money side of it. My view--and correct me if I am wrong--is that there is a resistance on the Republican side of the House--I can't speak for the Senate, and I haven't seen evidence of the Senate--to resist parity when it comes to increasing funding, even for these priorities that we spelled out, because it will increase the deficit, which has been greatly increased by the tax bill. So I would see, for some remaining, if existing, deficit hawks, that you might have that concern. Let me just also add that if there were not one DREAMer in America, America would be at a loss. These young people have come to this country with their parents. They have made us so proud with their diligence, with their attendance at school, service in the military, working. I have heard from champions of industries, many of whom celebrated the passage of the tax bill, saying: The people who work in our firms are exemplary. They are stars in our company. So why don't we not use them as an excuse not to face the reality that we have domestic responsibilities that we must deal with. But there is a path. Our appropriators are used to working together. The leadership has to make these decisions. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to do this by tomorrow and then give the appropriators the time to write it up, but to come to those terms. So let's all take a deep breath, let's understand our responsibilities to the American people. Let us withhold, as I have done, some of the--I have curbed my enthusiasm about certain other things I have heard said and done here. I haven't even brought the President's picture out saying, on his one-year anniversary: ``What this country needs is a good `shutdown.''' He said it earlier, but now he got one for his anniversary. Well, it didn't completely curb my enthusiasm in that regard, but I do say that we have more common ground than is reflected in how this has proceeded. Let us find a better course so that we can stay on that course as we meet other challenges that face our country. God has blessed us with the privilege to serve here. We respect each other. If we don't respect each other, respect the people who sent us here. We owe them a lot more than the government being shut down. So let's take a path to open it up, understanding that it will involve compromise. It is going to involve bipartisanship, transparency, and openness in how we get it done, but in a way that brings unity to our country. I think that that is something we all subscribe to. I certainly hope so. I call upon my colleagues to join us in sitting down and getting it done. I call upon the Speaker to be willing to bring some legislation to the floor that will do this and which would have bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I commend her for her great leadership as our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee--as we say, the almighty powerful Appropriations Committee on which I was proud to serve with the gentleman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Congresswoman Lowey. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, though, that the legislation that is brought to the floor today falls so very short of our responsibilities to the American people. When it comes to considering this bill, which the Republicans are bragging supports CHIP, it is important to review the facts. The facts are these: the CHIP proposal that the Republicans boast was on the floor in October, this or that, was funded by taking money from other children's programs, and that is why it was not to be supported by us. It is also important to remember that the CHIP reauthorization expired September 30. So here we are with our fourth continuing resolution. That means, on September 30, we were supposed to not only reauthorize CHIP but to pass an omnibus bill to fund the government. Republicans were not able to make the decisions necessary to do that, so we had one extension, another extension, another extension. This is the fourth extension. Now, for somebody who doesn't know what a CR is, that is our Washington lingo. It is a continuing resolution. What it says is that the funding for the country will be continued at the same rate as it was in the previous year regardless of the fact that other challenges have emerged. So, by engaging in the failure to pass an omnibus bill and engage instead in these short-term continuing resolutions, this inadequacy does not give certainty to our military. General Mattis has told us that the military cannot go on these every-2-weeks, every-month CRs. We need to know. We need to have an omnibus that recognizes the full complement of our needs, and they are different from last year. It does not fund the fight against opioid addiction. We have talked about this. We have authorized language. We have put up some money. But throughout our country, there is an opioid epidemic that needs to be addressed with full funding for it--not just conversation or rhetoric, but funding. It does not address some of the crises facing our veterans, whether it is their infrastructure, housing, whatever, or additional funding that is needed for our veterans over and above whatever it was last year, and this ignores that need. It ignores the fact that we have some issues that we have to address regarding endangered pensions in our country, which have a direct relationship to the economic well-being of America's working families, pensions paid into, pensions having a shortfall, to honor the responsibility. It doesn't protect the DREAMers. We could protect the DREAMers in all of this, but it is missing an opportunity. This takes us right back to the CHIP. It does not fund community health centers that provide primary care for 27 million Americans. So these priorities are bipartisan. Nothing I mentioned on this list is anything that does not have bipartisan support in the Congress, that has not been openly discussed--bipartisanship, transparency, unity-- unifying us around these issues. We did not put priorities forward that were partisan, but those that had bipartisan--strong bipartisan-- support. So when our colleagues come to the floor and say, ``Oh, we are doing CHIP,'' CHIP is a wonderful initiative. It was one of the first bills that I passed and sent to President Obama when I was Speaker of the House. This is of high value to all of us on both sides of the aisle, but not high enough of a value to put it in its proper context. So this reauthorization of CHIP that they are putting here, this funding for CHIP is not really funding. Let me just make a distinction. We wanted 10 years for CHIP, to make it permanent--so we don't have to go through this--and remove all doubt, remove the uncertainty as to whether this healthcare would be available to those children who need it. We said, 10 years, you save $6 billion; $6 billion, you save. You do 6 years, as in this bill, you save $1 billion. Why wouldn't we want to save $6 billion? Nonetheless, my concern is that they chose to bring a bill to the floor that isolates CHIP away from the other essentials that are a part of the delivery of that healthcare service to children. It does not reauthorize community health centers which provide, as I say, vital care to 26 million Americans. It does not extend the Medicare extenders so necessary, especially for our seniors with home visiting care and other initiatives. It does not address the Medicaid DSH, disproportionate share challenge that is across America. Ask your friends in rural America, especially, about that. Therapy services, diabetes, and teaching health centers for primary care doctors, all are completely out of this bill. That is why I am so proud of the legislation introduced by Congressman McEachin today which has the full complement. It is nothing additional. It is how we have always proceeded with the priority of children's health in a package that is about family health and delivery of service. As the President, himself, tweeted this morning: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or short-term extension.'' We like it 10 years; they have it 6 years. But it shouldn't be in this bill because this bill is sort of a half-baked facade to make it look as if we are keeping government open. We are keeping government debilitated by not addressing, coming to agreement on the omnibus bill that we know that we have to do that addresses the needs of our military, as it recognizes the security provisions in the domestic bill that are about security, whether it is the State Department, Veterans Affairs, homeland security, or antiterrorism activities of the Justice Department; and also, the fact that the strength of our country is measured in many ways: certainly, our military, which we are very proud of, and the agencies I mentioned, but also in the health, education, and well-being of the American people. So we are here. What does government do? Government does transportation. How can you, if you are in the Transportation Department, make commitments when you are on a short fuse of--what is it?--2 weeks in December, now 4 weeks that they want to go forward. Why don't we just settle it? Grow up. Take responsibility. Get this done for the American people. Nobody I know wants a shutdown of government--well, maybe except for the President, who said, ``Our country needs a good shutdown.'' He said that in May. I think with his experience as President now, he probably knows there is no such thing as a good shutdown. We don't want a shutdown. By the way, if there is one, this would be the first time there would be a shutdown in recent history that took place when one party had the White House, had the Senate, and had the House of Representatives, had full responsibility for managing and for leveraging, for getting the job done to fund our country for another year with certainty. This has 2-year provisions in what we are negotiating with the Republicans. So, really, coming to the floor and hiding behind CHIP to hide the shortcomings and the lack of taking responsibility for our responsibilities to the American people is really a sad thing. That is why Mr. McEachin's bill and our previous question, which had the full complement to make CHIP really work, was the way to go. Sadly, although I object to the process of one short-term continuing resolution of last year instead of looking to the future for next year--I disapprove of that process--the substance of this legislation makes it totally unacceptable, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the House of Representatives for coming together on the floor of the House and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge that we all face: the balance that we have to protect the American people. That is the oath we take: to protect and defend. As we defend the Constitution, we defend the privacy and the civil liberties of the American people. It is difficult. Over 20 years ago, I was on the Intelligence Committee for the purpose of protecting civil liberties and privacy, and also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, two really important overarching issues. So I come to the floor today as one who has worked on this issue for a very long time. I thank our men and women in the intelligence community for the work they do. We are so proud of what they do. In those days, almost 25 years ago, when I was first on the committee, it was about force protection and trying to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage, we would have the intelligence to protect our forces. It was about force protection. In the nineties, it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well. We live in a dangerous world and force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligence community does. Again, I thank the men and women in the intelligence community for their patriotism and their courage. The issue that relates to fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. But as we protect and defend the American people and the Constitution and their rights, we have to have that balance. It was Benjamin Franklin who said: If we don't fight for security and freedom, we won't have either. I want to particularly thank our ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. He has made us all proud in going across the country to honor our Constitution, talking about undermining our election system, talking about protecting the American people in ways that is consistent with our Constitution. I thank Mr. Schiff and I support him today in his support of the bill that came from his committee. Is it perfect? I have never voted for a perfect bill in this House. I also thank Mr. Nadler, a genius on all of these issues that relate to our Constitution. I also thank the members of the Judiciary Committee. We have very few members on the Intelligence Committee who are deputized by the Speaker and by the leaders of each party to go to the Intelligence Committee to deal with issues that relate to the balance between security and privacy. With all the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom I respect, it is not right to say there is nothing in this bill that protects the privacy of the American people. In fact, when I was supporting the Judiciary Committee bill, outside groups were complaining. They wanted the Zoe Lofgren amendment. They didn't want that bill. They were complaining about it. Now, today, they are saying that is what they want. Studying the issue, I think one of the differences along the way is when it is appropriate in terms of a warrant. That is why I am so pleased that we will be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what I am hearing about from folks. The amendment, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our Democratic Caucus, that seeks to secure the highest possible protections for American civil liberties. At the same time, it ensures that the intelligence community and law enforcement can continue to keep Americans safe. This amendment would go a step further from the modified bill that is on the floor under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information. Let me repeat that. The amendment will go a step further than the modified bill under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing Americans' information. Under this amendment, a court order would be required to access Americans' data in connection with any nonnational security criminal investigation by the FBI. This amendment removes predicate--that is the operational word-- standards and it expands the universe of investigations that would require a warrant. A vote for this amendment--and I hope it would be bipartisan, especially from those who are objecting to the bill on the floor--is a vote for privacy protections and for civil liberties. We would have preferred to have this in the original bill that is coming to the floor. We couldn't get that in committee. Hopefully, we can get it on the floor. Voting against the motion to recommit means fewer protections, less oversight, and more risk that Americans' rights will be violated. In the course of this, I mentioned this issue about the warrant and arrest. I talked about the Judiciary Committee's bill. At the offset of all of this, we all opposed the first Intelligence Committee's bill. We supported the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan bill being criticized by some outside groups for supporting it, rather than the Lofgren amendment. But changes were made in the Intelligence Committee's bill to this effect. We asked the Speaker to take out the masking provisions, which have no place in this bill. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. It made it a complete nonstarter. I thank the Speaker for removing it. By the way, somebody should tell the President because he thinks it is still in the bill. With that being said, I personally directed the unmasking process be fixed. It isn't fixed in the bill, Mr. President. That would be a second tweet of the day, confusing matters even worse, unfortunately. The administration, although they probably would like an extension of the status quo, understands we have to do more than that. The other provision that was in the bill was an expansion of agents of foreign governments. Agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. We said: That doesn't fly. That has to be closed. The Speaker did that. Then, on the ``abouts'' language, I think most people who understand that--it is a complicated issue--understand that it is really not a factor in this discussion. People don't want it mentioned, but the fact is that it had to be addressed. It is not being used and it is unconstitutional. Until it can be proven to be constitutional, it can't be used. When it is used, they would have to go to the FISA court to get permission, and then come to Congress for ratification of that. So there are many protections there. It is hard, I know. I had a hard time when I was Speaker and we passed a bill to address the gross violations of Vice President Cheney doing the Bush-Cheney surveillance. It was appalling, in my view. I considered it unconstitutional, others did not. But, nonetheless, we put in many, many protections where there were none, and then renewed and improved them when we renewed the bill subsequently in its reauthorization. This isn't about the other side of the aisle that is saying you don't care about privacy if you support this bill. It isn't about that. It is about where you strike the balance when you weigh the equities. We have to come down in favor of honoring our Constitution and our civil liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. And I believe that the Members and Mr. Nadler understand that full well, and I commend him for his deep understanding of the vital national security issues and the invaluable work that his committee has done to strike a balance between security and privacy and has made a difference. But the choice we have today is to pass something that is--defeat this bill. Okay. You have done that, if you want to do that. Pass an amendment that won't go anyplace, you can do that, and we will be left with extension of the status quo of the current law. As one who has participated in writing it those years ago, I understand its merit. I also understand the changes in technology, of tactics of terrorists who are out there, and that we have to improve the bill. I don't consider it a reform bill. It is not that vast. It is some improvements in how we can collect, protect, again, keep the American people safe as well as protect their civil liberties. Just a couple other things about it. Since this legislation was designed to address concerns related to the use of information collected under FISA section 702, an important foreign intelligence collection authority--we have to keep that emphasis on ``an important foreign intelligence authority.'' So, my colleagues, to that end, this modifies that it requires a court order based on probable cause for FBI criminal investigators to view Americans' communication in the section 702 database and mandates an inspector general study of 702 data. So let's keep the vigilance on, even as we go forward. It contains refined language related to ``abouts'' collection. It requires the executive branch to secure explicit approval from the FISA court for collection. It further objects ``abouts'' collections to--subjects a 30-day congressional review process. I know Mr. Sensenbrenner said nobody can do anything in 30 days, but I think we can. The bill strengthens the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. That was something I was instrumental in establishing when I was on the Intelligence Committee. I know it is important, but I also know that it has to be strengthened and it has to be respected as a watchdog. So, I mean, the list goes on requiring public reporting on the use of 702 data, just saying to the intelligence community: Don't try to minimize any violations that may have occurred; we want the facts; we want the truth. And that is why I am so glad it has expanded whistleblower protections and briefings to the Oversight Committee, which we have required. Unlike the original House Intelligence bill, which I oppose, this bill does not include language that would have likely expanded the universe of FISA targets who are now, as I mentioned before, agents of foreign policy powers. It excludes the language on unmasking; somebody tell the President. It gives me great pride in our Caucus, if you could have heard the beautiful debate between Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff on this subject. We are not that far apart. I think that the motion to recommit addresses most of the concerns we have been getting from the outside groups, and communities have dedicated their--whose organized purpose is to protect the civil liberties of the American people. But, again, with great respect for everyone's opinions and whatever they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do, we want to be sure we strengthen their hand in terms of protecting the national security of our country, which is our first responsibility, keep the American people safe, and, as we do so, to honor our oath of office to the Constitution, to honor the principles of the Constitution. Our Founders knew full well the challenge between security and civil liberties. They lived in a world when they were under attack. The War of 1812 came very soon after the establishment of our country, so this was not a foreign idea to them, and they bequeathed to us the responsibility to protect, defend, protect our liberties. And, again, respectful of this debate on this issue, I myself will be voting to support my ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, our ranking member, and Members will follow their conscience on this. I just wanted you to know, from my experience in all of this and with weighing the equities involved, that that is the path that I will take.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join our distinguished Speaker in honoring Congressman Don Young, who ascends to the position of dean of the U.S. House of Representatives following nearly 45 years of proud service on behalf of the people of Alaska. Congressman Young also holds the distinction of serving as the first dean of the House from the Republican Party in 80 years. Congratulations. On behalf of the Democratic Caucus, I extend my congratulations to Don; his wife, Anne; and his entire family. Despite our differences, it is clear that Don cares deeply about our Nation. Don serves because, in his words, he is ``enthusiastic about meeting people and trying to solve their problems.'' As a former teacher, he is an advocate for quality education for all. As a former U.S. Army tank operator, he believes in ensuring that servicemembers, families, and veterans have the care they have earned. In honor of his late, beloved wife, Lu Young, he has been a champion for the Native children of Alaska. The motto of the State of Alaska is ``North to the future.'' In his commitment to progress and better futures for the people of Alaska, Don honors those words. The dean of the House has the honor of administering to the Speaker, as the Speaker indicated, the oath of office, which begins: ``I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' As dean, Congressman Young will now have the special responsibility not only of defending the Constitution, but of defending the integrity and dignity of this institution, which he has done all along. Following in the footsteps of great leaders before him--Sam Rayburn, John Quincy Adams, Carl Vinson--it is now Don's solemn duty to help foster a climate of civility in the Congress and to hold our colleagues accountable for behavior beneath the standards of this body. I told Don I would tell you this story when I just congratulated him. He has been very helpful to us in making the Presidio go from an Army post to a special kind of national park. I hope he considers establishing the Presidio in San Francisco part of his legacy. We would love to welcome him and honor him in San Francisco anytime he is ready for that. But in the course of our conversations over those times, I noticed one day that Don had on this beautiful tie. It had a bald eagle and a baby seal on it. It had these beautiful animals on it. I said: Don, what a lovely, beautiful environmental tie you have on. He said: I call it lunch. Again, we know that Don Young will always honor the important obligations, as he always has, and now his new obligation as dean of the House of Representatives. That is historic. I congratulate him and thank him for his service.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the exceptional service they provide to the House in reviewing legislation that will come to the floor. I particularly want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for honoring the values of our country by advocating for an amendment to include the Dream Act as we go forward. I would hope that most of our Members would vote ``no'' on this rule and not allow for the previous question to come forward so that it will allow for the Dream Act to be considered. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the distinguished Members on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, for the hospitality extended to the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer; the chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham; and to me. At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I told the colleagues that we are in a tradition of having great Democratic and Republican Presidents who have been supportive of newcomers to our country and who recognize that immigration is the constant reinvigoration of America. When people come to our country with their hopes and dreams and aspirations to make the future better for their families, they are identifying with an American ideal: all of us having the responsibility to make the future better for the next generation. And their commitment, their courage, their optimism, their determination for a better future makes America more American. Every newcomer who comes here with that determination makes America more American. Among those people are our DREAMers. This is a very discrete group that we are hoping to protect in the Dream Act. Certainly, as our colleagues acknowledged this morning, we have important work to do on comprehensive immigration reform. We have a responsibility to protect our borders, North and South, and anything that flies in, East Coast, West Coast, and through the Gulf. But the fact is that--as was pointed out by our colleague, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the Hispanic Caucus: think of the DREAMers as a discrete piece that needs protection now and not wait for the entire comprehensive immigration reform to be resolved before we deal with this emergency. Just as we treat CHIP, 9 million children are depending on CHIP, but we are not waiting until we revise the whole healthcare system in order to pass CHIP, nor did we. When we passed CHIP, it was before the Affordable Care Act had passed. But let me say why it is really important for this to happen now. Unfortunately--and, really, I was pleased that our Speaker registered his disagreement with President Trump when he took the action he did in regard to DACA in September. When he did that and said, ``I will give Congress until March to pass a law,'' what he didn't understand is that he was putting these DREAMers at a distinct disadvantage. Every day, over 100, 120-some DACA recipients, DACA-eligible recipients, lose their status. That means, if they are working or whatever they are doing, they lose their status to do that in our country. Over 10,000 have lost status since the President's announcement--well over 10,000. So we can't wait until March to do this because it had consequences known to us but unforeseen by the White House and by the President. And I don't think, in his heart, that the President intended to hurt these people in the very cruel way that they are being hurt by the actions that are being taken. We can't wait until March. We need action. We need it soon. We need it to be bipartisan. That is what we have been working on--not me; Members, Member-driven bipartisan cooperation in trying to find a path that addresses the concerns that some have about the border--and we all do--and also addresses the Dream Act. As the President said: Let's call it DACA. Okay. We will call it DACA. So here we are. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we have been blessed in our country by Presidents who have recognized the value of immigration; that our country would be in stagnation if we didn't have this constant reinvigoration of visitors to our country. When President Obama acted because Congress had not acted to protect the DREAMers and their parents, that was really important for him to do because Congress had not acted. However, it is important to note that President Reagan, when he was President and President George Herbert Walker Bush was at that time Vice President, Congress did act through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. They did act. And President Reagan's observation was they didn't go far enough. So he took further executive action called Family Fairness to protect people in our country, immigrants in our country. Actually, President Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush protected a higher percentage of newcomers to our country than President Obama did with his DACA and DAPA action, a higher percentage because they understood the value to our country of newcomers. President Clinton continued all of that. President George W. Bush was a champion and continues to be a champion on recognizing the value of immigration. He has spoken about it intellectually, with respect, from the heart for people coming to our country, and he has urged us to do so. He couldn't get the cooperation of his own party when he was President to cooperate for comprehensive immigration reform, even though when we had the power as Democrats, we supported it. But he could not get the 60 votes in the Senate. But, nonetheless, he continues to be a champion, really, for immigration reform. And here we have a new President who campaigned on the backs of newcomers to our country and who made immigrants villains. It is a complete change from the Republican Party, from a commitment to valuing newcomers and diversity in our country. It is a complete departure from President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President George W. Bush, just to name the Republican Presidents. So we find ourselves in this situation, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a responsibility to all of God's children to treat them with respect, and when we can do something to be helpful, we should. There is harm that is coming to the DREAMers every day, because they are losing status. Regardless of what some may say, some are being deported. This may be unknown to the President, but it is not unknown to us in this Congress. I want to thank Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and her members. I want to thank Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who, working with the Congressional Black Caucus, has been a champion in that caucus; and all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who are striving to find a path. One path that we have open to us is to defeat this rule, to allow the Dream Act to come up, and to put that in the mix as we go forward. Again, this isn't an issue, this isn't a bill. It is a value, and that is the conversation we had with President Trump. This isn't an issue, but it is a value. This is about who we are as a nation and how we respect who we are as a nation. That is why, I believe, that President Trump will be receptive to signing a bill. He does want--and we are all concerned for--border security. We will work with him on that, but let's start by putting on the Record the support of this House for a recognition that we are immigrants, by and large. Unless some of you are Native Americans--and how proud we are of our Native American community in our country and how blessed we are--most of us come from immigrant families. It was interesting to me in doing some reading on some of this. I am very proud of my own Italian-American heritage. My grandmother was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Her parents were from Venice and Genoa. My father's family from Abruzzo. We are very proud of all of that, which makes us respect the pride that other people take in their heritage. What was interesting to me in recent days, because I remember--I didn't suffer this, but I know my father and others did: Italians were called ``wops.'' Do you know what wops means? It means ``without papers.'' That is what they were called: without papers. These people are without papers, but in every way they are American. I just want to tell you a couple of stories. One is Fernando Meza Gutierrez. Fernando lives in my district. Fernando's family came to the U.S. Fernando came to the U.S. when he was 9 years old. In high school, Fernando was an AP scholar and received the International Baccalaureate Diploma and the Achievement Award in Foreign Language for French. Fernando continued to excel academically at Santa Clara University, where he graduated cum laude with a double major in biology and French. Now a third-year doctoral student at UC San Francisco, Fernando also works at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is working hard to provide new insights into many diseases and disorders. I just want to tell you one other story. Lisette Diaz was just 6 years old when her family brought her to the U.S. from Chile. Growing up in Long Island, Lisette excelled in school and was involved in her community. She went on to attend Harvard, where she received numerous awards and participated in a variety of extracurricular activities. Lisette recently graduated from Harvard with honors. Lisette and other DREAMers have so much to contribute to our country, but Donald Trump and other Republicans have made their agenda clear. They want to shut down DACA and DAPA and deport hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and parents of Americans. That is what DREAMers think. We don't want them to think that. We want them to think that the President understands their value, the value of our DREAMers, and the challenges that they face. If we don't do something soon, Lisette will be deported back to Chile, a country where she hasn't lived since she was 6 years old. There are just thousands and thousands and thousands of stories of success, of those serving in our military, attending our schools, teaching our children, working in high-level positions, because they all have that immigrant attitude of hard work, hard work ethic, a work ethic, a faith ethic, a family ethic, a sense of community. In the sense and spirit of community, let's defeat this rule and allow the Dream Act to come forward.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and, once again, I commend him for being a champion of middle class families. I want my colleagues all to hear the esteem in which we hold our Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee. I thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Neal, for being our ranking member and for your extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's middle class working families, and that includes millions of veterans. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in the history of America because we have, on the floor, probably the worst bill in recent time to come to the floor. That doesn't mean it doesn't have stiff competition from other legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but this is the worst because so many people are affected in such a negative way and because trillions of dollars of impact on our economy have been voted upon without any hearing, without any hearing from the people who will be most affected by it--no hearings, no experts, no listening to the American people. Yesterday, our Republican colleagues stood on this floor and voted for a GOP tax scam that the American people oppose 2 to 1. Our Republican colleagues stood on the floor and cheered. They cheered a bill that will raise taxes on 86 million middle class families and hand a staggering 83 percent of its tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. Shamefully, the Republicans were cheering against the children as they robbed from their future and ransacked the middle class to reward the rich. Today, the Republicans take their victory lap for successfully pillaging the American middle class to benefit the powerful and the privileged. I come to the floor with stories of men and women and children that Republicans shamefully cheered against yesterday. Yesterday, I wish the Republicans had heard, as we did, the story of Ady Barkan, 30 years old, father of a beautiful baby son, and Ady is suddenly stricken with ALS, 30 years old. From his wheelchair, with a strong but wavering voice, he begged Congress not to pass this bill. He pleaded with anyone who would listen not to vote for this tax scam that will raise his health benefits and condemn Medicaid to devastating cuts as the logical next step. He has been lobbying on Capitol Hill against this bill for a while. Ady said yesterday it would do so much damage. It would deprive me of the Medicaid I need to stay alive a little longer and see baby Carl learn to read and teach him how to play chess and watch him go to first grade. But Republicans didn't listen, said ``no,'' and cheered. Yesterday, we heard the story, and I wish our Republican friends could have heard it, of Laura Hatcher, mother of sweet and kind 11- year-old Simon, one of the Little Lobbyists. Simon has a rare disease and cerebral palsy. His mother spoke of how their family watches the Muppet version of ``A Christmas Carol'' and how Simon sees himself in Tiny Tim, another kind boy with braces on his legs. Unfortunately, this story, as of today, does not have the same kind of happy ending as ``A Christmas Carol.'' But the story is not over, and like Tiny Tim, Simon and his family now find their future in danger because of the greed of those with power, the cruelty that is in the heart of the tax scam. As Simon's mother, Laura, said: Very soon I could, once again, be facing a future where I don't know how I will be able to care for my child. This is a thought I simply find too difficult to bear. Since you didn't hear yesterday, I will go on to say what she said. We parents of medically complex kids understand consequences. We know what will happen if this tax bill passes, if our country does not turn from this destructive and immoral path. But the Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no,'' and they cheered. They cheered against Simon because Republicans value the wishes of the special interest lobbyists over the Little Lobbyists, the voices of Little Lobbyists, sick children standing up for themselves and for their siblings, children standing with their siblings. Yesterday, we heard from faith leaders, too. They implored Congress to reject this bill that punishes working families and rewards the wealthiest 1 percent. I repeat: 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent; 86 million American working middle class families will have their taxes raised. Sister Simone said she wept for the fact that our Representatives are not weeping over the damage they are doing to families across America. They challenged us to honor our faith in this holy season, to remember that our first responsibility is to those who have the least, not to enrich those who are already privileged and powerful. They challenged us to heed not only the message of Christmas, but to remember the words of Jesus enshrined in the Gospel of Matthew. But Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no.'' They cheered. They cheered. They cheered against little Simon. They cheered against Ady Barkan. They cheered against people in need. The GOP tax scam is a monumental con job, but who got conned? President Trump will sign the bill whenever he signs it. I know it is supposed to be today, but I hear the special interests are weighing in for him to delay it for some reason or another. President Trump will sign a bill that betrays the promises he made in the campaign. President Trump promised to eliminate the carried interest loophole; yet the Republicans wrote a tax scam that not only continues this outrageous loophole, but it gives even more loopholes to the wealthy and well connected. President Trump promised to stop corporations from shipping jobs overseas, but Republicans wrote a tax scam that gives corporate America even bigger incentives to ship jobs overseas. President Trump promised tax reform focused on middle class families, tax breaks for middle class families. Republicans wrote a tax scam that raises taxes on 86 million middle class families in our country. President Trump promised he would protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but Republicans wrote a tax plan to explode the deficit and use it as an excuse to cut Medicare and Medicaid. They have made no secret of their plans. They have even said this week, to raise the Social Security age. So who got conned? Did the people get conned by the promises? Did the President get conned by the Republicans? Is he signing a bill that betrays his promises to the American people? It is all about the Republicans in Congress. They have in their DNA trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for corporations, and the former Speaker even said: If trickle-down creates jobs, that would be good. If it doesn't, so be it. That is the free market. As Republicans head to the White House for their victory lap, hopefully they won't trip over the wheelchair of Ady Barkan and other Americans with preexisting conditions. I caution them not to trip over the wheelchair of Simon Hatcher and other children with severe medical needs. They will be in the path of your victory lap. Don't trip over the sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers who tend to the health and well-being of their sick children and their siblings and who will not stop fighting to protect them. I told you yesterday in a public forum: I caution you not to get in the way of a mother and father of a child with special needs and disabilities or extreme medical conditions. They will do anything to protect that child, and they notice what you are doing here. As you are on this victory lap, you will probably have to put on earphones so you can block out the pleas of faith leaders speaking up for hardworking American families. I know the Republicans want to talk so they can't hear the truth about their bill, but the American people won't forget the false representations you have made. They won't forget how loudly you cheered when you hurt their families, their children with special needs, their families struggling to attain some financial stability. And why? These people say to me: How could they be so cruel as to put the health provision in this bill that would possibly eliminate 13 million people from the rolls of health insurance? How could they do that? Why did they do that? Why? The answer is always the same: to give them room to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country and to corporate America, unpaid for, permanently. Our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts will show his credit card again today. They are putting this bill on a credit card that our children are going to have to pay for, robbing from their future. This holiday they are talking about giving people a Christmas present? Well, Joe Sixpack, whom the President said he was there to help, and I hope that that is true, Joe Sixpack will be delivering the champagne to their parties. That is how this is. This isn't about anything better for working class families. This is about champagne glasses clinking and wealthy families across the country. I don't begrudge them their success or their wealth or their achievement. I just don't want to see it at the exploitation of America's working families. Shame on you for voting for this outrageous theft from the American middle class. Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing in this people's House and vote ``no'' on behalf of the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I salute him for his extraordinary leadership and being a champion for America's working families. I commend him and the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee for putting forth the facts on what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, today we choose what kind of country America will be: one that champions the ladders of opportunity for all or one that reinforces the power of the wealthiest and well connected. Outside the Congress, the American people have already made their decision. Polling shows that Americans oppose the GOP tax scam by a margin of 2 to 1. Hardworking families see right through the brazen con job Republicans are trying to sell them. So why aren't our Republican colleagues standing with their constituents? Why aren't they joining us on insisting on A Better Deal for American families? Why aren't they joining us in demanding that we write real bipartisan tax reform that puts the middle class first? Because helping the middle class has never been their goal. From day one, the donors, lobbyists, and the wealthy and well connected came first. The Frankenstein monster of giveaways and special interest loopholes we are voting on today proves it, and this monster will come back to haunt them, as Frankenstein did. Republicans claim that their bill is a middle class tax cut. The fact is, according to the Tax Policy Center, their bill raises taxes on 86 million middle class households. When The Washington Post asked Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, if the tax package in aggregate would mean a middle class tax cut, he said: ``That is delusional or dishonest to say. It is factually untrue. The only group you can point to that wins year after year and wins in very large magnitude is the very highest incomes.'' That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation former chief of staff. The only greater delusion in this bill is the ludicrous Republican insistence, their claim that these giveaways to the wealthiest will pay for themselves. Bruce Bartlett is the architect of Jack Kemp's supply-side economics. As Bruce Bartlett has testified in our hearing and in public, when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy paying for themselves, he said: It is not true. It is nonsense. It is BS. He said the whole words. In a few minutes, Republicans will vote to explode catastrophically our national debt at minimum of $1.5 trillion, likely $2.2 trillion or more. Where are the vaunted Republican deficit hawks? Are they endangered? Are they extinct? Do they care about the deficit when we pass giveaways for the rich and big corporations? They don't care about deficits, then. Tax breaks for the rich, corporate tax breaks: they don't care about the deficit. Do Republicans only care about the deficit when the issue is helping children, seniors, our veterans, who are a large part of hardworking Americans? My colleagues, my fellow Americans, remember this vote. Remember the vote, when they will cheer at the end of this vote, they will stand up and cheer, adding trillions to the national debt in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent and to big corporations. They will cheer that. They will cheer when they say we can't afford to protect the health of our innocent children. They will cheer that. Remember, they will cheer when they tell you we can't afford the next step, we can't afford Medicaid, Medicare, and a dignified retirement our seniors spent a lifetime earning. That is an applause line for them. Remember this day when Republicans cheer for a bill that hands a $4,000 child tax credit to families of four earning $400,000 a year. If you earn $400,000 a year, you get $4,000 in a child tax credit. But if you are poor, a single mom, a mother of two earning only $14,500, guess how much you get? Seventy-five dollars. Seventy-five dollars. Today we gather on this floor in the midst of a holy season. In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God. We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them. We remember our duty to live justly. For those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God's children. In this holy time, the moral obscenity and unrepentant greed of the GOP tax scam stands out even more clearly. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said early on, ``. . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy. This is simply unconscionable.'' They will be cheering it. Unconscionable. Remember what the Bishops said. Now, here, get back to the Republicans. This is in sharp contrast to the words of Senator Hatch. Now, he is the chairman of the Finance Committee in the United States Senate and an author of this bill. He said: ``I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the Federal Government to do everything.'' How about that? Tell that to the moms we just saw speaking out with their children, children with disabilities, who wonder how this could be so cruel. This is an act of misery, but not according to Senator Hatch. And that is in terms of getting back to our Bishops. In his encyclical, God is Love. And I have said this to my colleagues before, but with, obviously, no effect on the Republican side. Pope Benedict quoted the urgent moral wisdom of St. Augustine 17 centuries ago, my colleagues. Seventeen centuries ago, St. Augustine said: ``A State which is not governed according to justice is just a bunch of thieves.'' Pope Benedict went on to say: ``The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now.'' In his words, he cautioned against ``the danger of certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.'' Mr. Speaker, is there justice in a bill that rewards corporations shipping jobs overseas? Jobs of hardworking American men and women and veterans, shipping those jobs overseas? Is there justice in that? No, I don't think so. Is there justice in a bill that spikes healthcare premiums and may add 13 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured? No justice there. Is there justice in a bill that raises taxes on 86 million middle class families? Here we are. Raises taxes on 86 million middle class families, and they try to present the delusion that it is a middle class tax cut. Is there justice in a bill that hands a breathtaking 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans? Eighty-three percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent? Is there justice in a bill that explodes the national debt to give the wealthy and the well connected a break and sticks the debt with our children? Is that justice? I didn't think you thought so. I wish our Republican colleagues would join us. This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it. The GOP tax scam is not a voice for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our Nation. They will be cheering that later. It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class, and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. It betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. It morally demands a ``no'' vote from every Member of this House of the people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my fellow San Francisco Representative, Jackie Speier, as well as my Congressional colleagues, Representatives Barbara Lee, Judy Chu, Madeleine Bordallo, Lou Correa, Keith Ellison, Anna Eshoo, Al Green, Jimmy Gomez, Colleen Hanabusa, Jared Huffman, Ro Khanna, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ted Lieu, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Takano, Norma Torres, Grace Meng, Stephanie Murphy, Grace Napolitano, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jim Costa, and Nydia Velazquez, in great sorrow to pay tribute to a dear friend and an extraordinary leader: Mayor Edwin M. Lee, who died suddenly and tragically on December 12. Ed Lee served as Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco with devotion and distinction. All who knew Ed understood him as a true gentleman of great warmth, positivity and kindness. His passing is not only a tragic official loss for our city but also an immense personal loss for all who were fortunate enough to call him friend. Even through our heartbreak, we think of the exceptional person Ed Lee was, and we smile. Born the fourth of six children to hard-working Chinese immigrant parents of modest means, Ed was raised in public housing, and lost his father at the age of 15. Ed excelled at academics, winning a scholarship to Bowdoin College in Maine, where he graduated summa cum laude in 1974. He then graduated Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in 1978. Ed began his career as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer fighting for fair housing and on behalf of immigrant communities. He started his public service as director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, going on to serve as Purchasing Manager, Director of Public Works and City Administrator. Ed then served seven remarkable years as Mayor of San Francisco, an office he held with exceptional dignity and great effectiveness. He took pride in being the first Asian American Mayor of a city with such a rich and robust Asian American heritage. Ed's firm commitment to equality made strong progress toward securing affordable housing and a living wage for all. His unwavering belief in justice helped combat the moral crisis of homeless in San Francisco, particularly for our veterans. And his bold, hopeful vision for the future further secured San Francisco's role as a model city for the nation. In all aspects of his life, Mayor Lee's first priority was always the people. He fundamentally understood that the strength of a community is measured by its success in meeting the needs of all its people. Mayor Lee's greatest source of joy was his beloved family. Our city owes a debt of gratitude to his wife Anita and his daughters Brianna and Tania for sharing this remarkable man with us. Our deepest love and prayers are with his family. May it bring them some measure of comfort that so many mourn with them and continue to be inspired by him. During this difficult time, our full support is also with Acting Mayor London Breed, the Board of Supervisors and all the people of San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and an extraordinary leader, Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco. All who knew Mayor Lee understood him to be a true gentleman of great warmth, positivity, and kindness. His passing is not only a tragic official loss for our city, but an immense personal loss for all who were fortunate to call him friend. Mayor Lee's first priority was always the people. His strong moral compass was rooted in his identity as the hardworking son of an immigrant family of modest means and was guided by his years as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. Ed fundamentally understood that the strength of a community is measured by its success in meeting the needs of all its people. He knew the rhythms and the workings of San Francisco at the most granular level, and dedicated decades to improving the lives of all San Franciscans. As mayor, Ed Lee served with exceptional dignity and great effectiveness. His values-based, pragmatic leadership helped drive the city into a strong economic expansion. His firm commitment to equality made immense progress toward securing affordable housing and a living wage for all. His unwavering belief in justice helped combat the moral crisis of homelessness in San Francisco, particularly for our veterans. His bold, hopeful vision for the future further secured San Francisco's role as a model city for the Nation. Mayor Ed Lee's public service leaves an enduring, inspiring legacy that generations of San Franciscans will enjoy. As Ecclesiasticus says: The people will tell of His wisdom and the congregation will continue to sing His praise. Mayor Lee never had an unkind word for anyone, and no one ever had an unkind word for him. Even though our hearts are broken, we think of the person Ed Lee was, and we smile. Mayor Lee took deep pride in serving as the first Asian-American mayor of San Francisco. But his greatest source of joy was his beloved family. Our city owes a debt of gratitude to his wife, Anita; and his daughters, Brianna and Tania, for sharing this exceptional person with us. My deepest love and prayers are with his family. May it bring them some measure of comfort that so many people throughout the world mourn with them and continue to be inspired by him. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are joined by so many Members of Congress from the California delegation and from the Asian Pacific American Caucus as well.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of my dear friend Naomi Lauter, who died on December 4, in her beloved San Francisco. Naomi lived her life in the spirit of ``world repair,'' ``tikkun olam,'' dedicated to making the world a better place by fighting for values, ideas, and issues we all hold most dear. Born and raised in San Francisco, Naomi attended Lowell High School, UC Berkeley, and San Francisco State University. Her parents, Rose and Louis Ets-Hokin, were prominent leaders in the San Francisco Jewish community. Their activism, particularly that of her mother, who brought food, entertainment, and joy to America's servicemembers in San Francisco during World War II, inspired Naomi's own commitment to the causes of equality and justice. Naomi's political activism began in the 1950s in the civil rights and labor movements, most prominently by working with Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers. Her grassroots organizing and mobilizing helped in the fight to end segregation and to expand access to quality education for all. Her commitment to upholding the dignity of every person knew no bounds. Naomi and her husband of 61 years, Bob, were fierce supporters of Israel and worked tirelessly to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. Naomi was a pillar of the San Francisco Jewish community, where she was dedicated to forging connections between young Jewish Americans and the State of Israel. Her leadership in spearheading the San Francisco Holocaust Memorial and training generations of volunteers around the country will benefit the Jewish community for years to come. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that many political and civic leaders depended on Naomi's wise counsel, and with her passing, they have lost a dear friend. We will all profoundly miss her warmth and wonderful leadership. Above all, Naomi was passionate about her family; her husband, Bob; her four beautiful children, David Jonathan, Sarah, and Sam; and her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Our families were close neighbors and remain good friends. The Pelosi family was welcomed to many Shabbat and Passover Seder dinners with the Lauter family, and they joined us for Christmas. We celebrated together, just as we organized and worked together. May it bring comfort to the Lauter family that so many share their sorrow at the passing of this much beloved and inspiring woman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I thank him, and the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee, for being committed to the truth: to the facts. To hear the distinguished chairman of the committee say what he said about the budget is almost ludicrous, almost laughable, if it weren't so serious, in terms of the impact that it has on America's future. He knows that, in the last 4, and maybe even 5, years of the Clinton administration, the budget was in balance or in surplus--the operational budget--and it was on a path to reducing the national debt, until President Bush came in, gave tax cuts to the high end, a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry with the Medicare part D legislation, and three unpaid for wars. That is what the experts will tell you increased the deficit that was on a path of the national debt going down. It was a swing, Mr. Speaker, of $11 trillion: to date, the biggest swing in history. When President Obama came into office, he was inheriting a deficit--I am not talking about the national debt; I am just talking about the annual deficit--of $1.4 billion. When he left office, it was about a third of that. So don't try to mislead the American people. We owe them the truth. We owe them facts. That is why what is happening tonight in this body is so important: the violence that the Republicans are doing with their legislation on the economy of our country, robbing from our children's future to reward the wealthiest people and biggest corporations in America. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues a simple question: Who do we represent when we come to this floor? The American people, overwhelmingly, oppose the GOP tax scam--they see it as that--and they are making their voices heard. The American people are calling the Republican Congress to abandon the House and Senate bills, which pillage the middle class and pad the pockets of big CEOs and GOP donors. The American people want us to start over and, actually, put the middle class first. We should be working in a bipartisan way in order to do that, so that it will not only be right, but that it will be sustainable, and that there will be some certainty in our economy that this is a path forward that has bipartisan support. But have the Republicans in the people's House listened to the American people? No. Last month, House Republicans voted to raise taxes. In this House, House Republicans voted to raise taxes on 36 million middle class American families: stripping deductions from students and teachers, children and seniors, and homeowners and workers. They kept saying they were going to work it out with the Senate. Last week, in the dead of night, Senate Republicans voted to raise taxes on 78 million middle class families, while also spiking health premiums, and exploding the ranks of the health uninsured. Tonight, heading into this conference on the House and Senate bills, Republicans have sent an unmistakable message to middle class America: Pick your poison. Because, with either bill, middle class families lose; the American people lose. According to an analysis by The Washington Post, the GOP tax scam is ``probably the most regressive tax cut in the past 50 years. . . . It is hard to find a tax plan that has done less for the middle class.'' That is what we talked about. Who are we here to represent? Why are they doing this? Well, they are doing this to give a tax cut to the top 1 percent. Sixty-two percent of the benefits of the Senate bill go to the top 1 percent in our country. Is that fair, to give nearly $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to corporate America, while heaping other benefits on them to make it easier for them to send jobs overseas. Why? Well, some of their people have told us why. Congressman Chris Collins said: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't ever call me again.'' Senator Lindsey Graham has said the ``financial contributions will stop,'' if the tax scam fails. ``Scam'' is my added word. The Director of National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, has said: ``The most excited group out there are the big CEOs, about our tax plan.'' This is interesting to see the Freedom Caucus, which I thought was a values-based caucus, committed to reducing the national debt: a debt that is being added to here that we may never recover from. What happened to the Freedom Caucus? Weren't they supposed to be deficit hawks? Has that become an endangered species? No. It has become extinct. It does not exist on the Republican side, but it does exist on the Democratic side. We intend to fight this robbing of the future of increasing the deficit into the trillions of dollars by fighting this bill to the end. Where are all the Republicans who promised to reduce the deficit? Where are our Republican colleagues who insist that we have no funds to spare for the healthcare of our children, the education of our young people, the job-creating infrastructure of the 21st century unless we find offsets? Yet $1.5 trillion to corporate America, un-offset; tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country, un-offset. That means children have to pay for their healthcare with their immunizations. It is absolutely appalling. It isn't a statement of values in any way. Today, quietly, the Republicans--and some of them are admitting it with glee--are sharpening their knives for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Recognizing how they are increasing, they are soaring the national debt, now they have to find some ways to pay for it, so they are coming after Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The understanding of some is that it is only a question of whether they do it this year or a following year after the election. Well, I think you are in a lose-lose situation. I think you lose with your donors if you don't pass this bill, but you are going to lose with the American people if you do. Democrats believe that people deserve better. We deserve bipartisanship in how we put this together so it is sustainable. We are offering a better deal, better jobs, better wages, and a better future. The American people deserve real, bipartisan, permanent tax reform that puts the middle class first. The truth is that our colleagues either choose to ignore or do not understand the gravity of the situation. As they say in ``The Music Man,'' this is a terrible assault on the middle class. So tonight, with the Democrats' motion to instruct conferees, we want the Republicans to show where they stand. Will Republicans vote ``yes'' to protect the vital State and local tax deduction that enables people to live in a safe place? Or will they vote to double-tax middle class families, drive down home values, and endangering key funding for firefighters, law enforcement, and schools? Will Republicans vote to protect the healthcare of those with preexisting conditions? No, no, no, no, no. Or will they vote to spike families' premiums and add 13 million more Americans to the ranks of the uninsured if this bill goes through? I have said that this, with stiff competition by some of the other things they have put forth, is the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress. Now, how can I make that claim? Well, because it involves more money, hurts more people, increases the deficit by so much more. And just because everything is bigger in our country, the consequences of this bill, a multitrillion-dollar economy being addressed by a bill that had no hearings, no expert testimony, just with the speed of light, as Jamie Raskin says, the speed of light, in the dark of night, here we are. Who else thinks this is not a good idea? This is what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said: `` . . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy. This is simply unconscionable.'' I believe them. Let us remember the words of St. Augustine: ``A State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' He said that 17 centuries ago. When His Holiness Pope Benedict wrote about this in his first encyclical, God is Love, he went on to say: Sometimes you have to work hard to determine what justice is. But in doing so, you must beware of the dazzling blindness of money and power. Apparently, you did not heed that. Let us look honestly at the GOP tax scam before us. No justice. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct conferees, to at least inject some element of fairness and common sense into this destruction, and then to reject this terrible bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for his leadership, and I thank Chairman Harper for his as well. I thank them for bringing this legislation to the floor. Here it is, November 29, 2017, an historic day in the history of the Congress, a watershed moment in our Congress' history because it is a day in which we will take the opportunity to make change. This body is taking a constructive first step to protect all Members of our legislative community from harassment and discrimination in the workplace. This vote is vital to upholding the integrity of the U.S. Congress. We are grateful for the tremendous leadership of Congresswoman Jackie Speier. I have observed her leadership on this subject for a very long time. She has a lifetime commitment to exposing and ending the scourge of sexual harassment. I thank her for that leadership. I want to also acknowledge my own daughter, Christine Pelosi, who is the chair of the Women's Caucus of the California Democratic Party. She is a former prosecutor in San Francisco and prosecuted these cases, and she has been a strong, strong advocate for protecting people in the workplace and has had some level of success with that. So here we are at this watershed moment in the nationwide fight against sexual harassment and discrimination. Brave women in every corner of the country and in every industry are making their voices heard. As Members of Congress, we have a moral duty to show real, effective leadership to foster a climate of respect and dignity in the workplace, with absolutely zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination, or abuse. Anything less is unacceptable. Requiring the Members and the staff to take training, while valuable--and we must have it--must be only a first step. We must make sure that that training is very effective as well. But the next step for Congress to take is to pass the ME TOO Congress Act, introduced by Congresswoman Speier, to create greater transparency and accountability in the broken reporting and settlements system. Taxpayer money should not have been spent to build a culture of silence and complicity around workplace harassment. We must make a judgment about how that was used. This bill, the ME TOO Congress Act, will reform the shameful secret settlements policy that has persisted. It will ensure that survivors who wish to share their stories publicly can come forward, and they can come forward to the Ethics Committee. We want to create a culture that says to everyone who comes to work here: This will be hospitable for you. We want it to be a culture that is a model to the Nation. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this moment is a moment of truth for Congress. It is disappointing and disturbing that some in the Capitol have not served with the dignity and respect required of this office. It is very hard to accept that people we admire in public life and here in Congress have crossed the line and broken the public trust and violated the dignity and respect of those who have worked for or with them. But zero tolerance means consequences for everyone. No matter your contribution to our country, you do not get a pass to harass or discriminate. No matter how great the legacy, it is not a license to harass or abuse. To the victims of harassment and abuse: We hear you, and we believe you. We are here for you. Where there is harassment, women and men must have support to come forward. We have a duty, again, to address their concerns and provide them needed resources. We don't want to lose the leadership or service of any patriot who comes to work in or around Congress. We cannot let harassment or discrimination destroy their safety or drive them out of public office. We cannot tell young women or men who aspire to serve in this historic body that they must put up with harassment and abuse. Mr. Speaker, I want to just close by again thanking Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership and thanking Chairman Harper, Mr. Brady, and all who are concerned. It is utterly unconscionable that courageous survivors who seek to end the nightmare of sexual harassment are also dealt the injustice of having their voices silenced. During this watershed moment, we must seize the moment and take real, lasting action. The eyes of the country are on us. We cannot fail them or any prospective victims. I thank all of those who have brought this to the floor: Congresswoman Comstock, Mr. Harper, Mr. Brady, and Congresswoman Speier. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, unanimous vote on this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his superb leadership as the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. I commend him, and all of our fellow Democrats on the committee, for standing up for the middle class in our country and fighting for the truth and what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is a defining moment for our country. Our votes today will decide the future of the American middle class and those who aspire to it, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and the future of the United States of America as the land of opportunity. Today, Republicans have brought forth a bill that is pillaging the middle class to pad the pockets of the wealthiest and hand tax breaks to corporations shipping jobs out of America and drastically increasing the national debt. The bill Republicans have brought to the floor today is not tax reform. It is not even a tax cut. It is a tax scam. So many people have written in about it who are affected by it, and I will submit all of that for the Record, but I do want to say that this is not only a defining moment, it is a moment of truth. With straight faces and with the speed of light--I have to give them credit; they raced this thing through in the dark of night--they are trying to sell a bill of goods to the middle class that this is in their interest, that this is a middle-income tax cut. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Republicans are raising taxes on 36 million middle class families. I associate myself with the very wonderful comments of our distinguished House Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, especially at the end when he said: ``Look to your souls, not to your polls.'' I want to speak to Pope Benedict, his encyclical, God is love. It was his first encyclical as pope, and in that encyclical, Pope Benedict quoted the wisdom of St. Augustine. Seventeen centuries ago, St. Augustine said: ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' Benedict went on to say: ``The state must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now.'' And he cautioned against the ``danger of certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.'' Interesting, in light of the fact that when this bill is brought forward, the Director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, said: ``The most excited group out there are the big CEOs, about our tax plan.'' Is that about justice? Congressman Chris Collins said: ``My donors are basically saying, get it done or don't ever call me again.'' Senator Lindsey Graham said: ``The financial contributions will stop'' if this tax scam fails. Well, he didn't say scam. I am saying scam. That is my word. Back to the Pope and the Catholic bishops. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote: `` . . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy.'' The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went on to say: ``This is simply unconscionable.'' We always begin our session with prayer, and many of us attend mass on the weekend, on Sundays. But we cannot pray and think that that gives us a lesson to prey on people the rest of the week; and that is what this bill does. It preys on the middle class and those aspiring to it. It pillages and loots the middle class. It is a shameful piece of legislation, and the Republicans should know better. They say it is going to get better in the Senate. Oh my gosh. In the Senate, as Mr. Hoyer pointed out, unanimously, the Senate Finance Committee rejected this proposal already. Was it 26-0? Whatever the number was, the zero loomed large. But getting back to values, because that is what we are here to do, and what we do in our budget, which the tax bill is a part of. It is supposed to be a statement of values. In his study of civilization, the great British historian, Arnold Toynbee, found that, at the beginning of a hopeful country, the political leadership formed a creative minority that inspired and led the flowering of civilization. But in some nations, leaders became a dominant minority of ``exploiters, focused on their own wealth and power. Arnold Toynbee, welcome to the Republican side of the aisle and Congress. These competing mindsets, he went on, between the dominant minority of exploiters versus the creative minority that inspired and led the flowering of civilization, these competing mindsets and motivations create schisms in the body social and schisms in the soul of the body politic. And lo and behold, the Republican Party has written a bill, nearly half of the benefits go to the top 1 percent--top 1 percent in our country--and 80 percent of the benefits go to the top 2 percent. This is a defining moment, but it is also a moment of truth How can the Republicans, with a straight face, say to the middle class: Well, we are doubling this or doubling that? Give with one hand, take with another. And to hear them cheer, hear them cheer for the provision in here about the estate tax? Listen to this. You tell me if you think this is fair. 1,800 families in America--not your family farmer. Everybody is taken care of in what we have done already with the estate tax. In this bill, 1,800 of the wealthiest families, the filers in our country, will, in the life of the bill, get the break of $172 billion; 1,800 families. This is for 1,800 families. And you know what? The Republicans cheered that; 1,800 families are going to get $172 billion. They cheer the fact that up to $1.5 trillion in tax cuts goes to corporate America, while, at the same time, giving them another tax break to send jobs overseas; at the same time, absolving them of any responsibility when it comes to State and local taxes; while insisting that individuals lose the State and local tax deduction, but corporations do not. And listen to all of it. Were they cheering when they are saying to a teacher--hear their cheering when they say to a teacher: You may bring supplies to your school because your school and classes need that? God bless you for that. But we are taking away the tax deduction that goes with that. What? Is that something to cheer about? They are saying to students who get a $2,500 tax deduction on interest on student loans: Forget about that. Even though it may make the difference between your attending college or not, forget about that. We are too busy giving a tax cut to the 1,800 wealthiest families in America so they can get $172 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years. They are saying to families, whether they have a child with a disability, a senior with Alzheimer's, and everything in between: If you have extraordinary medical expenses, and, since 1944, you have been able to deduct them, no more. No more, because we have got to give it to the high end. So take that away. Do you have any idea what that means to America's working families, and what it means for them if they have Alzheimer's? We had one person come to our event in San Francisco last week from Barbara Lee's district. She said there was over $170,000 in costs for her because her husband has Alzheimer's. The tax deduction enabled them to survive. She said: I can't even imagine the cruelty that decided that this should happen in this tax bill. So understand what this means in people's lives, and tell the truth about it. Tell the truth about it. Republicans want you to believe that their trickle-down tax break for the rich will pay for itself. Never has happened. As Bruce Bartlett, architect of Jack Kemp's supply-side economics said, ``It is not true,'' that this trickle-down economics pays for itself. ``It is not true. It is nonsense.'' And he went on to say it was ``BS,'' in the full extent of those words. This tax scam won't create jobs. It won't raise wages. It will only fill the coffers of the donors and the fat cats. The GOP tax scam will add trillions to the debt and stick our children with a bill that you cannot pay off. And none of us will probably be around by the time the full impact of the hemorrhaging of the debt in the second 10 years of this bill will require big tax increases. Look to the Kansas example. As I like to say to the Caucus, Mr. Speaker, maybe I have to use my mother-of-five voice to be heard. But as a mother of five and a grandmother of nine, we are supposed to be thinking about our children and their futures, and our grandchildren and their futures. God willing, one day some of you will have grandchildren. I always ask the question: Do they breathe air? Do they drink water? Why are you messing that up in other areas of our policymaking here? But getting back to this. The tax scam won't create jobs. It won't raise wages. As I said: It will only fill the coffers of donors and the fat cats. This GOP tax scam will add trillions to the debt. Oh where, oh where are the deficit hawks? Have you become extinct? Is there not one among you who understands what this does to the national debt? And with all due respect to your leader, for him to put at our doorstep the debt, when it was a creation--President Bush went into office on a path from President Clinton of deficit reduction. The last five Clinton budgets were in balance or in surplus. President Bush turned that around by repealing pay-as-you-go. Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't trickle down. Two unpaid-for wars, giveaways to PHARMA, the pharmaceutical industry, taking us to a place--remember September of 2008, when we were in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression? But anyway, back to here. As Republicans know, our Republican friends have already shown us their playbook. In this bill, corporations will get a cut of $1.5 trillion--the same $1.5 trillion that Republicans plan to slash from Medicare and Medicaid in the GOP budget. In their bones, the American people know they are getting a raw deal under the Republican bill before us. You know it. You know why you are here. You know what you are doing. Democrats believe the American people deserve better, a better deal, better jobs, better wages, better future. We want to create good-paying jobs, raise workers' wages, lower the cost of living for families, give Americans the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. But you can't do that if you have a budget that does not invest in that future and is hampered by the cuts. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's write a bipartisan bill that raises wages, creates jobs, promotes growth, and reduces the deficit. To get to that place, we want to go to the table in a bipartisan way. What are you afraid of? In a bipartisan way, let's put together a tax bill that is good for the American people instead of one that does violence to the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' and to demand a better bill for America's working families. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' fabulous statement about this tax bill. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, November 9, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: Decisions about taxation involve fundamental concerns of ``justice and equity'', with the goal of taxes and public spending ``becoming an instrument of development and solidarity'' (Mater et Magistra, 132; Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 355). On October 27, the USCCB offered six moral principles to guide debate on tax reform, centered on care for the poor and concern for families. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 contains many fundamental structural flaws that must be corrected. As currently written, the proposal is unacceptable. Care for the Poor. Doubling the standard deduction will help some of those in poverty to avoid tax liability, and this is a positive good contained in the bill. However, as written, this proposal appears to be the first federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy. This is simply unconscionable. The nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) indicates that by 2023 this tax plan will raise taxes on average tax payers making between $20,000 and $40,000 per year. Taxes for this group will be raised again in 2025, and again in 2027. Taxes will also increase on average taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $20,000 in 2025. The federal poverty line is $12,228 for one person, and $24,339 for a two-parent family with two children. Nearly one in three Americans live in a family with income below 200% of the poverty line. Meanwhile, average taxpayers who make over $1 million experience dramatic tax cuts for the same periods. No tax reform proposal is acceptable that increases taxes for those living in poverty to help pay for benefits to wealthy citizens. Several other tax provisions that assist the working poor and others who may struggle economically are also eliminated, including: the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which incentivizes hiring of the disabled, veterans, those who have been unemployed for long periods, and individuals receiving federal poverty- related assistance; the tax deductions to reduce the burdens of tuition and student loans; the income tax credit to persons who retire on disability; the deduction for state and local income and sales taxes, which may impact people in higher tax states; the tax deduction for employee business expenses; and tax incentives to employers and employees to help with moving expenses for a new job. Strengthening Families. Society, in Pope Francis' words, is in ``debt'' to the family. The family is the most important institution in society because education, formation, and care for the human person, especially children, take place more in the family than anywhere else. Expanded access to schools of choice is a positive step in this legislation, and we would encourage Congress to go even further by empowering more parents in directing their child's education. We also appreciate that the legislation recognizes unborn children as eligible beneficiaries for parents' 529 education savings account contributions. However, this tax plan places new and unreasonable burdens on families, especially those who welcome life or experience serious hardships: It removes the adoption tax credit which provides important and life-affirming assistance for families to adopt children desperately in need of love and support. The plan also repeals the exclusion for adoption assistance programs, which allows a family to exclude money paid by an employer for adoption costs up to the amount of the adoption tax credit as an alternative. This exclusion also allows those who adopt a child with special needs to receive the full value of the exclusion regardless of actual adoption costs. Eliminating the credit and exclusion sends the wrong message about our national priorities, which ought to protect life, strengthen families, and affirm the value of every human being. The savings to society from children finding loving homes is well beyond any revenue lost due to the credit and exclusion. It eliminates the personal exemption. Even with the doubling of the standard deduction, some larger families will pay more, including many two-parent families with more than three children, and single-parent families with more than one child. It is laudable that the child tax credit has been expanded and removes the marriage penalty. However, the modest increase in the credit does not fully compensate for the elimination of the personal exemption for some larger families. Moreover, because the child tax credit only remains refundable up to $1,000, lower income families will get no additional benefits from the child tax credit, while suffering the full loss of the personal exemption. It eliminates the out-of-pocket medical expenses deduction for families facing serious or chronic illness. It eliminates tax incentives to employers to provide dependent care assistance or child care. The family flexibility credit, at $300 per taxpayer, is some help, but is set to expire after five years and does not offset the greater losses. It eliminates the qualified tuition reduction for children of teachers, which will raise taxes on educational institutions and disrupt family arrangements. It repeals mortgage tax credit certificates, which are only available for first-time home buyers under certain income thresholds. Other aspects of the plan also have consequences for families. By creating stricter rules around parents' social security numbers, the plan makes it more difficult for immigrant taxpayers to receive the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit for their families, or to receive assistance in seeking advancement through education. Progressivity of the Tax Code. Pope St. John XXIII wrote that a progressive tax code is required by ``justice and equity.'' The ``Unified Framework,'' upon which this tax plan was based, promised that any new tax code would be ``at least'' as progressive as the present code. This plan breaks that promise. It raises taxes on the working poor, while simultaneously providing large tax breaks to high-income taxpayers. It also repeals the estate tax (which applies to the estates of single people valued at more than $5.5 million and married couples valued greater than $11 million), and eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which was designed to prevent high-income earners from avoiding tax liability through loopholes. In the years that the working poor suffer a tax increase under this bill, millionaires and billionaires will see significant tax decreases. This must be fixed. Those who stand to benefit the most from proposed tax policies ought to be the ones to bear most of the risk associated with them, rather than those who are struggling and in need. Adequate Revenue for the Common Good and Avoiding Future Cuts to Poverty Programs. The state has a legitimate role in promoting the common good, and a legitimate interest in collecting taxes to do so. This tax plan, by design, will result in a nearly $1.5 trillion deficit over ten years. Even with the potential benefits of economic growth from individual and corporate tax cuts--which cannot be guaranteed--the poor should not be the ones to finance these changes. Undoubtedly, the deficit will be used as an argument to further restrict or end programs that help those in need, programs which are investments to help pull struggling families out of poverty. Repeal of the AMT and estate tax alone comprise a good portion of the deficit that is built into the plan. Rather than exploring even modest reductions to these dramatic cuts for the wealthiest, the bill raises taxes on the vulnerable and creates a strong incentive to cut the social safety net. Incentive for Charitable Giving and Development. Doubling the standard deduction will bring tax relief to many people. However, for those who give to charity, it will make the charitable deduction increasingly a benefit only available to high income families. An ``above-the-line'' deduction would incentivize and assist charitable giving at all income levels, and increase the amounts people can give. It would also guard against a multi-billion-dollar decrease in charitable giving that this plan would otherwise cause, shrinking civil society and cutting income to nonprofits that help the poor, just as government aid to the poor is jeopardized, as noted above. By and large, money given to charity helps those in need. The tax code should encourage voluntary association, mutual aid, and a culture of giving, helping rather than hurting groups that will be asked to do more for the poor in the days ahead. Similarly, this plan will lower the value of affordable housing and community revitalization incentives. Public-private partnerships that benefit the poor and the greater community should not be discouraged. Because tax policy is far-reaching, Congress must provide ample time for Americans to discuss the complexities of these reforms and fully understand their effects. The current timetable does not provide adequate time for that discussion. In many ways, this legislation is unacceptable in its present form and requires amendment. It must be changed for the sake of families--the bedrock of our country--and for those struggling on the peripheries of society who have a claim on our national conscience. Sincerely, Most Reverend Frank J. Dewane, Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. Most Rev. George V. Murry, S.J., Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic Education. Most Reverend Oscar Cantu, Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace.

Ms. PELOSI. I return to one of their statements: `` . . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut for the wealthy.'' The Senate is not going to make it better. They have already said they are raising taxes on those making under $75,000 and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. They have already said they are going to take affordable care away from 13 million Americans. I don't know how that is making it better. That might be something you applaud, but I certainly hope you would not vote for it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the resolution rightfully expresses the urgent need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen, which remains a stain of the conscience of the world. The resolution condemns violations of international law and specifically denounces those actions taken by Iran that are illegal. Saudi Arabia should also be subjected to that judgement. When the resolution ``denounces the conduct of activities in Yemen and areas affected by the conflict that are, directly or indirectly, inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict, including the deliberate targeting of civilian populations or the use of civilians as human shields'' and ``calls on all parties to the conflict to allow for unobstructed access for humanitarian organizations, human rights investigators, medical relief personnel, and journalists,'' those calls should apply both to the Iranians and to the Saudis.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I accept his compliment on behalf of the House Democratic Caucus, which really developed the better deal. It sprang from our membership, with consensus based on our values that keep us united for America's working families. That is the unifying factor in our Democratic Caucus in the House. Mr. Garamendi, I thank you for your diligence in always coming to the floor and speaking truth about the numbers, about what they mean to America's future, and also about making it in America. So much of that is violated by what the Republicans have put forth. I thank you for starting with the budget, because a budget should be a statement of national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in how we allocate our resources. That is how we Democrats have always thought of it and acted upon it. That is not what is present in the Republican budget on which these taxes are predicated. Would it be a statement of your values to take $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid and give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to corporate America while, at the same time, saying to working families you are going to have to pay what little--hit them on their deduction on SALT, the State and local taxes, and rubbing salt in the wound by saying that corporations don't have that deduction taken away from them and, at the same time, in this tax plan, making it advantageous for corporations to send jobs overseas by having them pay a lower tax for a factory they set up abroad than they would pay in the United States? It is just not right. It is just not fair. You have been a champion, along with Mr. Hoyer, on making it in America. Again, this tax proposal that the Republicans are putting forth does violence to all of that. And thank you for pointing out the structural nature of what they are doing to the budget. The Republicans, our colleagues, are supposed to be deficit hawks. We agree that we must pay as you go. That has been our modus operandi until the Republicans came along and removed that: You want something? Pay as you go. Republicans contend to be deficit hawks, but that must be an endangered species because none of them seem to recognize or acknowledge the damage they are doing to our fiscal soundness as we go out not just in the first 10 years, which is damaging enough and structurally horrible enough, but in the following 10 years. And we in Congress, when we make proposals that have a budget impact, have to account for not only the first 10 years, but the second 10 years. Mr. Speaker, in the second 10 years, the horror of what the Republican tax bill does to the budget is a hemorrhaging--a hemorrhaging. This tax bill, when Members vote for it, if they do, will be an assault on our children's future. It is not only fiscally unsound, it is morally ungrounded because it says to our children and, in my case, our grandchildren: You are going to have to pay the bill. The sad part of it is it has an impact on the budget. It comes back and says, well, we have so much deficit and so much debt service, so much interest on the national debt, we are now going to have to make further cuts in education, in research and development, in all of the initiatives that produce innovation. Innovation begins in the classroom. They make an assault on the classroom in this tax bill. It is going to get worse when they try to pay for it. Then, of course, it is fiscal engineering so that they can go after Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security once again. They have never really believed in Medicare. They say it should wither on the vine, and in this bill, they do violence to it. But let's just talk about what this does to the State of California, my colleague, because our Golden State, which we are proud to represent, is a great economic resource to the Nation--to the Nation. It contributes enormously to our balance in trade, whether it is agriculture from your area, innovation, entertainment, whatever it is. California is a big producer of favorable balance of trade for America. Without California and without the industries that it has spread throughout the country, we would be in an even worse trade situation than we are now for all the giveaways that the Republicans are giving in the trade issue. But let me just talk about this and what it means to people in their homes at their kitchen table when they are trying to pay the bills, establish their own priorities, make ends meet. It is shocking, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking that 14 of our colleagues from California voted for a budget, and now many of them are proposing to vote for a tax bill, that will hurt their constituents to the tune of tens of thousands of their constituents. Doug LaMalfa, the First District of California, around 100,000 households in his district claim the SALT deduction to the tune of thousands of dollars, and they will lose that. Tom McClintock, around 100,000 or more claimed the deduction, and that is 36 percent of the households in his district, and they will lose thousands of dollars. How does Paul Cook explain to his constituents, 57,000 of them who have claimed the deduction, that he is going to cost them thousands of dollars by increasing their tax bill? Jeff Denham, he is really going to have to explain it very hard to a large percentage of his constituents as to how he is increasing their tax bill by thousands of dollars. David Valadao, tens of thousands of his constituents will get the bad news if he insists on voting for this bill, which will cost them thousands of dollars. Devin Nunes, tens of thousands of his constituents will pay the price for his lack of courage in a vote to go down the line with the Republicans to give a tax break to the wealthiest corporate America at the expense of their constituents, a direct expense and cost to their constituents. Kevin McCarthy says to corporate America: We will give you $1.5 trillion tax cut, and guess who is paying for it? Around over 100,000 of my constituents to the tune of thousands of dollars. Steve Knight: Don't worry, my constituents, we are giving the tax cut to corporate America, $1.5 trillion, and we are taking it out of your pocket, you are paying more. Sadly, Ed Royce has the largest number of people who will be affected, close to 100,000 people, and they will be spending thousands of dollars more in the taxes that they pay because of SALT. Ken Calvert, the same thing, tens of thousands paying thousands of dollars more. Mimi Walters, how does she explain to her constituents, tens of thousands of them, that they will be paying thousands of dollars more in taxes? Why? To give a tax break to the top 2 percent: 80 percent of the tax break goes to the top 2 percent, 50 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent, $1.5 trillion goes to corporate America. Dana Rohrabacher, the same thing, tens of thousands of people will be paying thousands of dollars more. Darrell Issa. Hopefully Darrell won't vote for this. Hopefully some of these constituents will make sure that their Member of Congress knows that they see what is happening. Darrell Issa, well over 100,000 constituents paying thousands of dollars more. Duncan Hunter, the same thing, around the same number. Well over 100,000--well over 150,000 paying thousands of dollars more. That represents about a third of his district. But, as I said before, to rub salt in the wounds, while they are saying to their constituents, ``You are going to pay more because we are taking away your deduction,'' they are saying to corporate America, ``Your deductions for State and local taxes you keep.'' It is just remarkable.

Ms. PELOSI. It was my pleasure.

Ms. PELOSI. And I underestimated them because I know they would question them, so I gave a conservative view. It is worse. But you bring up the State and local, what SALT means, State and local taxes. The State and localities, did you see there is a letter--I don't have it right here--from the mayors of scores of cities in California asking the Members of Congress not to vote for this because of the provision that is in there that undermines their ability to address the education needs of their constituents, of the people in those towns and cities, the public safety issues? We had a firefighter come testify as to what it means to public safety, to law enforcement, to meeting the needs of people so that they can learn, that they can work, that they can raise their families, and to do so in a way that everyone pays his or her fair share. That is not the case here. So, again, it is a boon to the megarich corporate special interest and a bust to the middle class. It also is very harmful to small business. While the Republicans will say this is good for the middle class, it is not. They give with one hand something and take with another, so they can set the banquet table for the superrich corporate America and throw some crumbs to the middle class and say: Sucker. I am just telling it the way it is. Instead, Democrats say: Let's go to the table, let's be respectful of each other's views, let's have a clear objective debate on putting growth in the middle table--what creates growth for our economy, generating good-paying jobs, not stagnated wages, good-paying jobs, and reduces the deficit, instead of taking us into a hemorrhaging state of deficit in the years to come. That is part of what is now. If time allows, and after the gentleman says his remarks, I will go into some of the specific ways in which cruelty is demonstrated in this budget. But right now, I just want to say this is a letter to the California delegation from 24 cities with their seals at the top and the signature of their mayors, some of them Republican, who have asked not to pass a bill that has this provision in it.

Ms. PELOSI. No. Well, what you see is they haven't really talked to the American people because they don't want the American people to know what is in this bill. You would think that at the time when the bill is being marked up in committee, when they came to the floor instead of engaging in their conspiracy theories, they would, instead, brag about what they are doing if they think it is right, but they are not. And the reason is they are going so fast. This is the speed of light, in the dark of night, so that nobody knows until it is too late, but we are going to make sure that everyone does. Let me correct my statement. I am not sure if any of the Republican mayors signed this letter, but 24 mayors did. I see two prominent mayors lacking on here, and I guess the discipline of the Republican Party is extended to the mayors. But their cities will suffer, and they know it. Just another point, because you brought up process. I am not into process. This is about what does this mean to America's families. But because you brought it up, it is important to know that they don't want people to know, and that is why their process is so behind closed doors. Their members didn't even know what was in this until a couple of days ago.

Ms. PELOSI. Every single one of them is voting to raise the taxes of their constituents. And in California--not that they were from California--but the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that 5.5 million California taxpayers--that is about a third of our taxpayers, and that is families, so that is many people--will see an average tax increase of $4,180; 2.2 million of those receiving a tax increase will have incomes of less than $110,000.

Ms. PELOSI. So how can they say to the middle class, this is for you?

Ms. PELOSI. New taxes. And we all want to encourage homeownership because it is putting down roots. Building community is very important. But it is not just California, it is across the country. We are speaking from our experience. We are holding the California Republicans accountable. But every one of the Members who votes here is doing an injustice to the ability of States and local governments to do their job. We are cutting taxes. Now you go raise them so you can get the job done. So it makes matters even worse when you see what else is there. Some of the cruelties that are in the bill, I mean, macrowise we know that this is a big transfer of wealth from middle class people to corporate America and to the superrich. We know that it is unfair to the middle class and will raise taxes on the middle class. It will increase the deficit. It is a legacy assault on our children's future. In addition, it deprives us opportunity cost to our budget in the near- term. But there are some things in here that maybe are illustrative of the fact that this is not a statement of anybody's values that you know. Let's talk about education for a moment. First of all, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, one of the dumbest moves in this bill, with stiff competition, but one of the dumbest moves in this bill is the cut to education. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investing in education: early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning. And in this bill, they, of course, make an assault on education. For example, if you have a student loan, right now you have a $2,500 deduction for your interest payment on the loan. Not in this bill. Make that zero. What? What did the middle class ever do to the Republicans that they are going to take away a deduction for interest on student loans when it is hard enough to save up and pay for college? Next, now let's just go down to grade school. You are a teacher and you bring to school supplies for the classroom because your district is too poor to afford all of the things that the children would like to have. Right now, you get a tax deduction for what you bring to the classroom, but not in this bill. They have to take that away so they can give a tax break to the superrich so that schoolteacher isn't even compensated adequately, is sacrificing her personal funds, gets a tax break, but they take it away because the top 2 percent are desperate for their tax cut. But I don't think they are. I have more faith in the people of our country to say: Let us pay our fair share and let's do what is right. But the list goes on on the things about lifetime learning and employers being able to provide for the training of workers: bye-bye. Let me just tell you this one, since we are talking about education and children. In the bill, right now you get a tax credit to help you with adopting a child. Such a joy to a family. If you are adopting a child with special needs, a tax credit. Not now. They have got to take that tax credit away from you. You don't need it anymore because they have got to give it to corporate America. If your employer decides that their place of business wants to help you with adoption, they get a deduction for helping you with your adoption. Not under this bill. Say good-bye to that. Tax credit to the family adopting, tax deduction to the employer all gone so they can give the top 1 percent of our country 50 percent of this benefit at the cost of America's working families. If you have medical needs, since 1944, you could deduct medical expenses for extraordinary medical needs. Very important to America's families. Not anymore. Say good-bye to that because we have got to take care of the superrich, so the pressure is on you. The list goes on and on, but it gets personal. For families, it makes a difference as to whether their children can go to college. It makes a difference as to whether they can make ends meet with their medical expenses. It makes a difference if they don't have their State and local tax deduction. Again, this is across the country. We are speaking from our California experience. It would take all night to go through the sins in this tax bill. I just wanted to give you a touch of some of those and how they directly impact America's working families while they profess that they are helping them. Not true. Then they say: Oh, it is going to pay for itself. Never has, never has. Don't take it from us. Bruce Bartlett, who is part of this supply side economics leadership as well as the trickle- down economics, said: We never said it would pay for itself. Anybody who says it does, it is not true. It is nonsense. He even went on to say it was BS, as I am allowed to say on the floor of the House in its initial form. These other things they say that just aren't true--oh, they take the name of Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in vain, and even President Ronald Reagan: Oh, this is what they did. No, this isn't what they did. They had over 400 people to testify, 30 hearings over a period of a couple of years, and worked in a bipartisan way to iron out so that it would have sustainability. That is the only way you get a good tax bill, is if it is bipartisan and sustainable. So, in any event, this is a moment of truth for the American people, and we want the truth to be known. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for calling the Special Order.

Ms. PELOSI. And just barely. Just barely.

Ms. PELOSI. All 14 California Republicans, like lemmings to the sea, betraying the economic security of their constituents' families.

Ms. PELOSI. I do, too.