John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 734,000 hungry children in Pennsylvania all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3.8 billion, gets a massive tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this has been a robust debate. We had a robust debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we have had robust debates in the committee markup and during hearings, as well, over the priorities of this country. As we close this debate tonight, recognizing there will be a few minutes tomorrow for comments, I just want to say that, since this could very well be the last time that I get to appear in Budget Committee business with Chairman Black, I have truly cherished the 9 months that we have spent working together. The chairman is a gracious, fair, thoughtful, and very, very collegial individual, and I wish her the best in her campaign, at least through the primary. I thank her and her very, very competent and professional staff for all of the courtesies they have shown us during this year and this process. I also want to pay tribute to the Democratic staff, people who work very, very hard every day and are brilliant in their fields and make me sound smarter than I probably am, but I would like to read their names: Jon Antista; Erika Appel; Ellen Balis, the staff director; Hayden Flanery; Jon Goldman; Elliott Grantz; Jocelyn Harris; Najy Kamal; Sam Lau; Sheila McDowell; Diana Meredith; Farouk Ophaso; Kimberly Overbeek; Scott Russell; and Ted Zegers. They do terrific work, and I want them to know how much I and all the members of the Budget Committee, the minority, appreciate their work. I would also like to thank my personal staff, led by my chief of staff, Julie Carr, for the work they contribute to this process as well. In closing, there are a few comments I want to make about this debate. We heard several times during the day that it is really not fair to talk about the consequences of the tax proposal that will be the end result of this process because the details haven't been ironed out yet. That is, you know, fair enough as it goes, but there were enough details in the outline that we saw last week to make a pretty good guess as to what the impact of these tax cuts would be. Now, we have read over and over, as Republican speakers spoke, the fact that they were willing to jeopardize the health and safety and nutrition of their citizens to give the wealthiest people in their State tax cuts. Most of these numbers that we read were in the billions of dollars: $38 billion, $16 billion. These are individuals with net worths of astounding amounts. The outline that was publicly released last week said that the Republicans intend, under this tax proposal, to eliminate the estate tax. If they eliminate the estate tax, much of that money is not going to be taxed. They will get to keep it. I don't think that they are going to be out there creating new companies. Maybe their children will do it if they inherit it. Maybe they have given some of it away so those estates aren't quite as big. I suspect many of them have. The point is, when you are talking about wealth, collectively, the wealthiest persons in the 50 States, collectively, have $750 billion in net worth, which means that, if they paid the estate tax, there would be over $300 billion in money that they would save if you eliminated the estate tax. So while, yes, we may be off plus or minus 3 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent, the fact is that this is an enormous break for the people who have been the most fortunate in this country. I think it is more than fair to say, if you say you are going to eliminate the estate tax, if you say you are going to eliminate the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we can go look at President Trump's 2005 tax return, which said he paid $31 million in tax because of the alternative minimum tax, it doesn't take any details to know that he would have saved $31 million in that year if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax. So, yes, the rates may vary. Ultimately, the tax bill that we have presented to us may not lower the highest rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, but if it does, we know the impact that that will have. We know who will benefit most from that. It is the wealthiest 1 percent of this country. As I will say tomorrow when we close this debate, I am in the top 1 percent. Half of this body are millionaires. They are all going to benefit. We are all going to benefit. Meanwhile, the people who rely on many of the programs that will be slashed under this Republican budget will suffer. That is not fair. Now, Republicans will make the argument, as they always do because this is a matter of religious faith to them, that if you give people more money, they will magically create all this growth. Well, has that really happened? Out of the Fortune 500 companies, I think, in a recent study, 92 of them paid 20 percent or less in corporate tax. Collectively, they eliminated 300,000 jobs over a 5-year period. So they had more money than corporations paying 35 percent. Did they use it to create more jobs, more wealth among middle class and working families? No. They used it to pay dividends, to buy back stock, and to increase the wages of their CEOs. That is what has happened in modern history every time we lower corporate tax rates or we let them bring taxes in from overseas. They do not create more jobs with the money that they save. So I think it is very, very fair for us to look at this entire process, the budget proposal, which does anticipate a tax cut--which they claim is revenue neutral, but it is a tax cut--and the outline that we saw last week and say: Who, really, is this going to help? It is not going to help the people who need the help. It is going to give more money to the people who already occupy one of the strongest economic positions in a country with the greatest disparity of wealth in the world. So as we conclude this debate, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the alternatives that will be proposed by the Democratic Caucus, by the Congressional Black Caucus, and by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and compare the values and the priorities of those budgets to those that the Republican budget represents. I think, on balance, anybody in good faith will say that those budgets, not the Republican budgets, are the budgets that will create a stronger, fairer society in this country, and those are the ones that we should proceed to adopt. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 941,169 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in South Carolina to pay more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

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

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

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

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

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 1 minute.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee and a fellow rabid Cleveland Indians fan.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have had numerous letters submitted to us taking a position in opposition to this budget resolution, and I think they are pretty compelling, and I would like to read from some of them. Here is a letter from the Main Street Alliance: Main Street Alliance, a network of small business owners throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This budget, if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm small business owners and their employees, damage local economies, and decimate State budgets. We urge you to protect Main Street small business owners, working families, communities, and economies, and oppose the House budget resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax cuts for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations to lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital programs that harm small business. This letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, and the Republican Study Committee budget. Instead, I ask you to support the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Black Caucus budgets. The committee-passed budget resolution would slash funding to Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security, all to pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable corporations. This from the American Public Health Association: On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a diverse community of public health professionals who champion the health of all people and communities, I write in strong opposition to the House FY 2018 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 71. This proposal does not eliminate sequestration and would drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending. Such cuts would devastate our Nation's public health and safety net system and would have a disproportionate impact on our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. The proposal also includes the House passed repeal of the Affordable Care Act that would force millions to lose coverage, end the Medicaid expansion, drastically reduce Federal funding for the Medicaid program, and lead to increased cost and fewer benefits for millions of Americans. This letter from the AFSCME, American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of AFSCME, I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution approved by the House Budget Committee and scheduled to be considered in the full House. This budget would impose considerable hardship on many Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and corporations to boost defense spending. Rather than increasing revenues for investment that creates jobs and spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a fast- track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the wealthy. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Trump GOP tax cut would largely benefit the richest 1 percent. The budget also relies on the gimmicks of dynamic scoring and sham accounting, hiding the true cost of unnecessary and harmful tax cuts. And this, from AARP: Proposals creating a defined contribution premium support program, restricting access by raising the age of eligibility, or allowing hospitals and providers to arbitrarily charge customers higher prices than Medicare can make healthcare unaffordable for older Americans. These proposals do little to actually lower the cost of healthcare but simply shifts cost from Medicare on to individuals, many of whom cannot afford to pay for their care. Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the essential services provided through this program. Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost shifts to State governments unable to shoulder the cost of care without sufficient Federal support. Proposals to block grant the program or impose work requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in times of need, and without clear work requirement exemptions for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals from receiving SNAP benefits. We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71. We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that protect and improve Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and

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

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to reject it. Some Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are engaged in a steadily escalating campaign to tear down the Congressional Budget Office and anyone else who does not tell them what they want to hear. This amendment is a direct assault eliminating half of CBO's budget. The CBO is our impartial referee. Its vigorous work has been indispensable for Congress as we consider legislation that impacts the lives of the American people. This amendment is not good for democracy, and it is not consistent with the principles of good government. Republicans claim to care about fiscal responsibility, but this amendment would destroy the office we rely on to help us meet that standard. My Republican colleagues are willing to compromise the integrity of this House solely because they cannot defend the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act. They cannot effectively explain to their constituents why they voted to leave more than 20 million Americans uninsured and dramatically increase the cost of insurance for millions more. They are unable to justify cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and jeopardizing care for seniors in nursing homes, children, and families struggling to make ends meet. What they are doing in all of this is to provide cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This amendment is a clear attempt to divert attention from that reality and to hide the truth from the American people. It will set a dangerous precedent. As students, we would all like to grade our own papers, but we can't do that in Congress. We have to have somebody impartial who will grade them for us and tell us what this means to our budget and to the American people. Congress created CBO to give us our own sense of budgetary information and expertise so we would not have to rely on administration estimates. CBO improves our ability to protect the power of the purse. For more than 40 years, the CBO has steadfastly fulfilled its mission providing impartial analysis and expertise to inform our decisionmaking. The CBO Director and all personnel are appointed to their positions without regard to their political affiliation, solely based on their ability and qualifications. They show no allegiance or deference to any political ideology or party when preparing their analyses. It is all too easy these days to take refuge in information that tells us only what we want to hear. But that does not lead to sound policy. CBO does not exist to give us the information that we want to hear. Its job is to give us the information that we need to make informed, responsible decisions. It is one of few institutions in Washington that serves that role. It is beneath the Congress to attack the CBO which is only doing its job. It should be embarrassing to my Republican colleagues that they are launching these attacks simply because they do not have the courage to defend the damaging effects of their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This needs to stop.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, I set off on a long-shot campaign run by a talented and passionate but also overworked and inexperienced staff, many of whom were learning on the job. Yet everything went pretty smoothly--smoothly enough, obviously. A big reason for this was an unpaid volunteer who just seemed to know how to do everything. She would show up with a warm, ever-present smile, eager to tackle the smallest task or take on the most challenging responsibility. Whatever was needed, Carolyn Whitaker-Tandy made everything easier. When it was time to hire a district director, Carolyn made that decision easy, too. I am fortunate to have had my friend Carolyn running my Louisville office since day one. Though I will miss her leadership, I am proud that she is moving on to new opportunities. I know the people of Louisville are better off because of her service. I saw it firsthand every day for more than a decade. For all she accomplished, her commitment, and her continued friendship, I am forever grateful. I expect great things from Carolyn and her amazing family, and I wish them nothing but the best going forward.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, my neighbor from just down I-64, for organizing this Special Order honoring the life of Senator Bunning this evening. This is the first time in my 11 years serving in Congress that I have spoken from this side of the aisle, and it is a fitting occasion that I do that. I am proud to join my Republican colleagues and friends this evening. During his baseball career, Jim Bunning was once asked what his proudest accomplishment was, and he recalled the fact that he went nearly 11 years without ever missing a start. ``They wrote my name down, and I went to the post,'' he said. I can't help but think that is a fitting way of also describing his political career and his love of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Kentuckians wrote his name down time after time again, and he went to work for them, no questions asked. Jim and I obviously didn't see eye to eye politically all the time, and as amazed as I was by the curve balls that he threw on the field, I sometimes found myself equally amazed by some of the curve balls he threw off the field, but that was Jim. When so much of what happens in Congress is political theater, you can't deny that he was always real and that every word he spoke, he genuinely believed. I am sure Jim's family takes great pride in that fact. I join with my colleagues in offering them my thoughts and prayers as they continue to grieve their loss. I hope they find comfort in the lifetime of memories they share together. It is reported that Daniel Boone once said: ``Heaven must be a Kentucky kind of place.'' I sure hope that is true. As I said at the time of his passing, Jim Bunning can now throw no- hitters forever on his field of dreams.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, the question every Member of Congress should be asking themselves today is: Who in the world is better off because of today's bill? It is not the 24 million people the CBO says will lose their health coverage if this bill becomes law. It is not the seniors who will be priced out of the market by an age tax or the millions of families who will see their health care gutted by the more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid. It is not the 881,000 non-elderly adults in Kentucky with preexisting conditions who would, once again, face staggering health costs with reduced care. So who is better off? Well, certainly corporations and millionaires who will see nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts from this bill. And at least, in their minds, a few Republican Members are so desperate for some type of political victory they are willing to risk the health and well-being of their constituents to ram through a bill without hearings, analysis, or, most alarmingly, any sense of morality. That is the cruel tradeoff my Republican colleagues have decided to make. Our families deserve far better. I urge my colleagues to exercise better judgment and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the city of Louisville will lay to rest Officer Nick Rodman, a loving husband, father, son, and friend, who died in the line of duty last week. The special commitment that the men and women of law enforcement make to protect and serve their fellow citizens is one that the Rodman family holds dear, and Nick felt that call to service deeply, growing up as the son and brother of fellow officers. He is survived by the loves of his life: his wife, Ashley; his young son, Mason; and his newborn daughter, Ellie Jean. I ask my colleagues and our Nation to join me, the Louisville Metro Police Department, and our entire city in honoring this public servant as he is laid to rest. To Nick's wife, Ashley: I hope the memories you have with your husband will be a source of comfort as you face this heartbreaking tragedy. The city of Louisville joins you in grief, and we will ensure that Nick will always be remembered.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after 7 years of campaigning against the Affordable Care Act, congressional Republicans have finally produced what they cynically describe as a replacement plan. Sadly, however, this bill will unravel all of the progress we made under the ACA, including expanding access to health insurance to 22 million Americans and improving the quality of coverage and care for tens of millions more. It nearly doubles the amount of uninsured people in this country, guts Medicaid by almost $900 billion, and weakens the Medicare trust fund. That was bad enough. But the last-minute changes to this bill are astonishing and appalling. This legislation now allows insurers to end coverage for prescription drugs, mental health, maternity and newborn care, preventive care, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, outpatient care, rehab visits, lab services, and pediatric care. That is not progress. That is not a fix. That is a potential health crisis for every American. My Republican colleagues are well aware of this. Why else would they have drafted this bill and these last-minute changes in secret? Why else would complicated legislation affecting the lives of millions be sent to the floor just 2 weeks after it was introduced with no congressional hearings, not a single one, on a bill that impacts the health care of nearly every American family? Why else would they rush the bill to the floor without an updated Congressional Budget Office estimate of how much coverage and care will be lost by their backroom deal that ends consumer protections? I get it. I wouldn't want to, nor would I know how to justify giving nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy paid for by threatening the health and well-being of millions of American families. Who is getting these huge windfalls? Companies like Amgen, with annual profits of more than $3 million; Medtronic, with annual profits of more than $6 billion; and Gilead Sciences, with $13 billion in profits in 2016 alone. When the CBO released its report last week showing that 24 million hardworking Americans will be left without healthcare coverage by 2026 if we pass this bill, that premiums will rise 15 to 20 percent next year, that people will pay thousands of dollars more in deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and that older Americans will be priced out of the market by an age tax, I thought for sure it was dead on arrival, that there was no way my Republican colleagues would walk this plank. But here they are, and they are trying to take millions of American families with them. Fourteen million Americans will lose health coverage next year if this bill is approved. Twenty-one million Americans will lose coverage in the next 3 years alone, wiping out all of the coverage gains from the ACA in just 3 years. For pretty much everyone else in the individual market, deductibles and other costs will be higher. And for lower-income individuals, out-of-pocket costs will be much higher. Insurance companies will again be able to sell plans that offer much less financial protection, and we will return to the days when millions of people in this country will live in fear that they are always one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy. This bill will result in the largest transfer of wealth from struggling families to the well-off in our Nation's history, giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. It is Robin Hood in reverse, but this is far worse because access to lifesaving care is being stolen. I don't say that casually. I have met people, constituents of mine, whose lives have been saved because of the Affordable Care Act. This is from one of my constituents: ``My name is Kevin Schweitzer. I am 62 years old and I'm a lifelong resident of Louisville, Kentucky. ``I worked hard, took risks and built a successful small business that I sold at age 59. My wife and I were excited about our prospects as we headed into early retirement. As a retiree too young for Medicare, I purchased health insurance on the open market. Less than a year later, I was diagnosed with lymphoma. I have undergone multiple scans and 2 cycles of chemo. I am winning the battle so far, but since this disease is in my blood I will be fighting it for the rest of my life. ``A cancer diagnosis is a life-changing event that not only attacks the body, but the mental stress is just as tough to deal with. Thanks to ObamaCare, I've been able to rest easier knowing that my illness wouldn't bankrupt my family and that I'll be able to provide for my wife even after I'm gone.'' I also heard from a young woman named Sarah Adkins. She suffers from chronic kidney disease. Sarah was able to get health insurance because of the ACA. On January 9, 2011, it saved her life. One of her kidneys shut down and almost went septic. If she didn't have coverage, she would have waited or not gone to the hospital at all. The doctor told her that if she had arrived at the ER an hour later, she would have died. Mr. Speaker, the health of my constituents Kevin Schweitzer and Sarah Adkins is at stake in this debate. They, and the hundreds of other constituents I have heard from who have serious and chronic health conditions, will need high-quality, affordable health coverage for the rest of their lives. Under this bill, they will get less coverage, it will cost more, and eventually they will be priced out of the market, leaving them nowhere to turn for the care they need. And that is not all. Because of the last-minute changes to this bill, insurers will be able to sell stripped-down coverage to weed out people with preexisting conditions. They will be able to refuse, for example, to offer coverage for chemotherapy drugs and cancer treatments, insulin pumps, hospital stays, and prescription drugs that treat chronic conditions across the board. Basically, if you have a serious health problem, the care you need may not be available to you at all. When the American people were promised by President Trump and Republican congressional leadership that their existing coverage would be preserved and that everybody would have insurance and it would be less expensive and much better, they, understandably, believed they would be treated much better than this. None of those promises are in this bill. In fact, the opposite of every one of those promises is what is in this bill. Those were promises made to every family in our congressional districts, and this bill fails them at every turn. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 38,200 people from his congressional district in California losing health care and coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.