John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ half minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we wind down our arguments here, once again, we have had a very fascinating discussion and, once again, we seem to disagree on virtually everything. For instance, I have heard from the other side many times over the last few days and today that we really can't say what the impact is, the claims that we are making about whether this bill will help the rich or help the middle class or help lower income individuals, because we don't have the details. Well, that is absolutely correct; we don't have the details. But then, if we don't have the details, how can the other side talk about the huge benefits that this proposal, this tax proposal that is yet unwritten, will provide for the middle class? And how can they deny that it will benefit the wealthy disproportionately? We know from the outline that was released by the other side in recent weeks that they intend to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax only benefits wealthy Americans, people with estates over $11 million for a couple. They want to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. We know the alternative minimum tax only affects wealthy individuals. There was one estimate that the one year of President Trump's tax return that we have, that in that year alone, the alternative minimum tax, if it were repealed, would have saved him $30 million. So we know that affects very wealthy people. We know that if you reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, that benefits very high-income people. So we do have enough information to draw some pretty definite conclusions about the impact that the released outline, at least, will have on wealthy Americans, and we can draw some of the same conclusions about how it will hurt middle class Americans. If, in fact, the Republican tax bill repeals the deduction for State and local taxes. In my State, there will be half a million people who will lose an average of $9,900 of deductions every year. So we absolutely know the impact that the proposal, as we know it now, will have, and I think it is fair--given that there will be no hearings on this bill--it is fair to raise the alarms about what the potential for this bill is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I now have the distinct honor of yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that, for anyone watching this debate or watching any of our discussions out there in the country, I know it often appears that we don't get along, that we hate each other, and that we are at each other's throat, but nothing could be further from the truth. It has been such an honor to work with Chairman Black as a member of the Budget Committee and all the Members. We do all respect each other and get along. We just have some very serious disagreements about policy. That is fair. That is what this country is about. Once again, since I may not get to do it again as Chairman Black pursues another office and probably won't appear with me on the same program anymore, I just want to wish her the best and say what a joy it has been to work with her. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut to the chase: the Republican Study Committee budget is so extreme, it cannot be taken seriously. It cuts spending by $10 trillion over 10 years, which is $4 trillion more than the already irresponsible spending cuts in Chairman Black's budget. To its credit, the RSC tells us where those cuts will come from, rather than leaving large amounts unspecified or using matching asterisks or phony economic assumptions to reduce spending. The RSC budget cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It cuts programs that ensure basic living standards, protect the environment, and help families afford college. For 2018, the RSC budget matches the President's level for defense, including war funding. But for nondefense discretionary spending, the RSC budget provides $394 billion, which is $122 billion, or 24 percent, below the austerity cap. There is no way this House or any House would approve an appropriations bill that inflicted a 24 percent cut on all government operations. If just two programs--veterans' programs and NIH funding-- were excluded from those cuts, everything else would be cut by more than 55 percent. So yes, this budget claims to reach balance, but it would achieve it by making cuts that would be catastrophic. Not even Congress is that self-destructive. I contend that the two Republican budgets actually show how dismissing the notion that revenues must be a part of any solution to restrain deficits and debt, compounded with the flawed notion that balance must be achieved in the short term, will inflict intolerable hardship on the American people. While totally unintentional, they make a pretty compelling case that for Congress to responsibly address our debts and deficits, while funding the Federal programs and investments that the American people want and expect, raising revenues has to be part of the equation. One of the things that amuses me, in a very kind of dark way, is that I remember so well, in 2010, when Republicans actually rode to victory in the House by claiming that we Democrats were going to cut $750 billion out of Medicare. That wasn't true, but they claimed it. Now, in this Republican Study Committee budget, they have doubled down on that. It is not exactly double, but they are going to cut it by $898 billion. I don't think America's seniors and the disabled population would feel very good about that. I would like to thank my colleagues for bringing that important issue to the debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to have this debate and speaking in such high-principled ways about the need to reduce deficits and debt. I don't think any Democrat would argue that we need to do something to reduce deficits and debt. We face a very dire, long-term fiscal future. But we also lose sight of the fact that the American people expect something from their government. They expect our government to keep them safe, but they also expect their government to protect their drinking water, protect their air, to make sure that the food they eat is not dangerous, to provide law enforcement and help local law enforcement to do many things. The budget, as well as Chairman Black's committee budget, would decimate all of those services that the American people expect from the Federal Government. I think only about what is going on right now with Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands and the enormous cost that the Federal Government is going to have to bear to help restore those communities and those territories to some degree of normalcy. That is what they expect the American Government to do. These budgets would make that all but impossible. So we look at it both ways. Later, we will propose a Democratic alternative that actually makes those kind of investments and makes sure that the notion of American security is not just a huge military, but is a foundation of investment in human capital and research and infrastructure that will allow this economy to grow. We do it with keeping debt at the same percentage of the economy, as it is now, because we are willing to raise revenues. On the other hand, Republican budgets, both the Republican Study Committee budget and the chairman's budget, anticipate enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations--tax cuts that have been proven to do exactly the opposite of what many on the other side claim they do, which is to stimulate economic growth. We will hear claims that, yes, we can cut taxes by $2 trillion or $3 trillion over 10 years, and they are going to be paid for by this renewal of economic activity. But history tells us that is not what happens. Not only history tells us that, but virtually all the economists in the country tell us that, too. Goldman Sachs, Steve Mnuchin's previous employer, says that the tax cuts outlined last week would maybe create an additional 0.2 percent of growth in the economy. CBO and the Federal Reserve say tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Even Bruce Bartlett, the author of ``Reaganomics,'' says this whole notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is nonsense. He actually said bull, which is half of what he said, but you get the idea. This is not easy. We can speak in the darkest terms of how we are imposing this debt on our grandchildren and try to use emotional arguments. But the fact is, we are dealing with a very realistic, pragmatic dilemma, and that is: how to do what the American people expect us to do without making the future impossible. It is not done by the Republican budgets. We think it is helped along by the Democratic alternative, and we look forward to having that debate just a little bit later this morning. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I feel like I have to be Paul Harvey for a second and talk about the rest of the story. Because while what Mr. McClintock said was true about the initial phases of the Reagan administration, at the end of the Reagan administration, the national debt had almost tripled, and he had been forced to raise taxes a couple of times in the interim. So, again, we can argue about how positive cutting taxes were in the Reagan administration, but the end result wasn't particularly good for the American economy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say that we need to cut right to the chase. It is unlikely that either the Republican Study Committee budget or the Republican Budget Committee budget could pass this House. It certainly couldn't pass the Congress. This is all about moving the ball forward so we can push through a massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, with 51 votes in the Senate. That is what this day is about, and that is what this process is about. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject both the Republican Study Committee budget and the Republican Budget Committee budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans are looking at the same challenges facing our country and American families. Education, healthcare, and housing costs have all increased while wages stay stagnant. It used to be that the two parties would debate different strategies to address the problems facing the American people. Sadly, those times are behind us. In giving millionaires, including the majority of this Congress, the President, and wealthy donors a giant tax cut, the Republican budget does not even pretend to address the problems facing the American people. Not only does it ignore working families, it increases their challenges. The Democratic budget alternative, in stark contrast to the Republican budget, begins to address the real challenges our country faces now and in the long term. We are less than a decade removed from the worst economic crisis in most of our lifetimes, and we have a chance to rebound in a way that builds a foundation for our country to thrive for generations, but we have to seize that opportunity. Rather than giving resources to people and businesses that already have them, we are calling for targeted investments in programs that grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, and provide real support for working families and real security in retirement. Rather than sending thank-you notes to the corporations that bankroll campaigns, we have an opportunity to make vital public investments that lead to a brighter future rebuilding roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure, all of which lead to good jobs now and in the long run. Rather than giving the President a multimillion-dollar refund on taxes he refuses to disclose, we can invest in retirement security for seniors who didn't inherit millions. We can invest in affordable education so young people do not have to grow up wealthy to have a shot at earning it in their future careers. Instead of taking healthcare away from people, straining emergency rooms, and making Americans sicker, we have an opportunity to continue investing in affordable quality healthcare for all of us, finally eliminating a great burden on American families, a burden that no other developed nation shares. This budget is an opportunity for our country to invest in our future, and if we adopt the Republican budget plan, we will have squandered it. Democrats believe in a government that prioritizes American families, and they should be the priorities of this Congress. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in closing, it is clear that we have a very different budget and a very different understanding of the challenges facing our country. We see that so many Americans are working harder and longer and can't remember the last time they got a raise. We know families are worried about how to pay for college, or if their parents' retirement is secure, or if they will ever be able to afford to stop working. And we know that trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and large corporations will turn these fears of hardworking Americans families into reality. Just a few minutes ago, my Republican colleague from Ohio talked about what the American people want. On many of those things, we agree. But I know one thing the American people don't want. They don't want massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans. The Democratic budget rejects tax cuts for the wealthy. We invest in programs that will grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, provide real support for working families and real security in retirement. We make education and childcare more affordable, and we support policies to help every American get the healthcare that they need. Those are the priorities of our budget, and they are the priorities of the American people. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative, and I yield back the balance of my time.