BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of H.R. 3590, and to the bill.

They say you can't have your cake and eat it too, but that is exactly what Republicans are trying to do with this bill. They are trying to keep the benefits of ObamaCare and repeal the costs of ObamaCare. They are saying we are going to continue subsidies for middle-income and lower-income people, every expense associated with ObamaCare, and yet we are going to reduce the funding. We are going to increase our deficit by over $30 billion.

At a time when the deficit continues to add to our national debt, when many of us are calling for going the opposite direction, trying to balance our budget, I am a proud sponsor of a balanced budget amendment. Digging this $30 billion hole will make it even harder to balance the budget.

If the Republicans are serious about cutting $30 billion in revenue, let's show where they are going to cut $30 billion in costs. Whether it is from the Affordable Care Act or whether it is other items, it is not intellectually honest to simply say we are going to cut money, but we are not going to tell you where it is coming from.

This bill would add $33 billion to the deficit. And we all like tax cuts, Mr. Speaker. I mean, who wouldn't want to cut taxes for everybody? It is always a question of: How are you going to pay for it?

The Republicans failed to pay for this $33 billion in that bill. In fact, by giving tax cuts today, they are making our next generation, our children, even more beholden to today's debt and the legacy of debt that they are leaving for the next generation.

The revenue generated by this provision is an important part of trying to reduce our deficit and balance our budget. Removing that will simply create a hole of over $30 billion in a deficit that is already over $400 billion.

H.R. 3590 would increase the deficit by establishing the itemized deduction threshold at 7.5 percent for all taxpayers. If Congress continues to roll back pay-fors on a law that costs money to implement, it is going to continue to increase our deficit. There have been a number of other measures that have been brought before this body that have also increased our deficit.

At a time when numerous significant public health crises need to be addressed--the Zika virus, opioid addiction, the water in Flint--we are actually discussing a bill that increases the deficit by $33 billion and doesn't even deal with any of these crises, making it even harder to try to find the scarce resources that we have and divert them from existing operational programs or other revenue generators to address the Zika public health crisis, the opioid addition, or the Flint water crisis.

While H.R. 3590 sets out nice tax cuts, it doesn't pay for them. The reality of this bill is that the higher a household's income, the more likely it is to get a tax cut. According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, if H.R. 3590 were to become law, taxpayers with over $100,000 of income would receive two-thirds of this tax cut at the expense of their own children, who would then be forced to inherit a nation even deeper in debt.

When you spend money you don't have, that is a future tax increase. So effectively what this bill does is it trades a tax cut today for a tax increase tomorrow. If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, this country has done too much of that already.

It would be one thing if this tax cut were paid for. We could weigh the pros and the cons. We could weigh the costs and the benefits, a $32 billion tax cut. I agree with what my colleague said. It would be a wonderful thing to do. It would be a wonderful way to help families afford health care and increase the deductibility level.

But what's the tradeoff, Mr. Speaker? There are tradeoffs in this world. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Where are you going to cut $33 billion because this tax cut is so justified? Maybe there is a program we can agree to cut. I would probably support it today if we decreased defense spending by $33 billion over 10 years and that was the pay-for. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would much rather give the money to middle class families than continue to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military.

And look how cavalier this body is about adding $33 billion to the deficit. All in a day's work, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, we are impeaching an IRS Commissioner and we are adding $33 billion to the deficit. We wonder why, when the American people look at this body, its approval rating is so low. Twelve percent is what I saw last. In 1 day, we are adding $33 billion to the deficit while not addressing critical issues with Zika and Flint.

In Flint, for example, a year has gone by since a doctor first raised a red flag about the city's water supply, and we have not appropriated or replaced the corroded water pipes. There is still water being trucked in. While Flint families are continuing to rely on bottled water, on trucked in water, Congress is increasing the deficit even more.

Or we can examine the abuse of prescription opioids, an epidemic that is sweeping this country. Now, we passed a lowest common denominator bill, a bill, of course, I supported. It has some good statistics and good coordination, but it doesn't substantively do anything to address the fact that opioids were involved in 28,647 tragic deaths last year alone, the most on record.

In May, we heard Members from both sides of the aisle come to the floor and speak eloquently about how addiction is ravaging families back home, and I share those stories from Colorado. But when the President submitted a proposal that would have provided $1.1 billion in funding to actually address this epidemic, Congress did nothing. So here we are increasing the deficit by $33 billion, where, if we simply took $1 billion of that and addressed the opioid crisis, $1 billion of it and addressed Zika, then we could simply use the rest to reduce the deficit.

We are happy to spend money we don't have. The Republicans are happy to spend money we don't have when it comes to tax cuts; but when it goes to public health, when it goes to lead in pipes, when it goes to reducing prescription drug abuse, there is no money for that. Instead, this body passed a package of bills with no funding.

And then there is Zika. In the pantheon of public health emergencies, Zika is particularly pressing. Almost 19,000 Americans have already contracted Zika, including 1,800 pregnant women. The numbers are likely higher because we don't know all of the diagnoses in all of the cases, and four or five people only have mild symptoms and might not be diagnosed.

In pregnancies, Zika, as we know, can be especially devastating and, I might add, costly to taxpayers for the lifetime of the child. A fetus is susceptible to severe cognitive impairments caused by the virus, including microcephaly. So far there are upwards of 20 cases of microcephaly in the U.S., and that number is set to increase with the prevalence of Zika, which only Congress can act to stem.

The administration declares Zika to be a public health emergency in Puerto Rico, where one in four people are estimated to become infected over in the next year. Florida is grappling with an upsurge in cases, prompting the CDC to issue its first ever domestic travel warning within our own country to our own State of Florida.

We need to learn more. The virus has been around for decades, but few comprehensive studies exist as it made the transition from Africa to South America. We know very little about the likelihood a fetus will contract Zika or what the factors are that affect that and the long- term implications of exposure to the virus as an infant.

This knowledge gap isn't for lack of qualified talented researchers. I was fortunate to visit the CDC's Division of Vector-Borne Diseases with Representative Buck just a few weeks ago to see firsthand the research they are doing into viruses such as Zika, but they need the ability and the resources to focus on this imminent public health crisis.

At a CDC laboratory, the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases relies on Federal funding to produce cutting-edge science that saves lives. If this body were to approve the requested amount to fight Zika, it is likely we would know already a lot more about this scary virus.

Relevant to my district is another recent and unprecedented outbreak of a mosquito-borne virus: West Nile. At 28 human cases, it is the highest incidence of the virus in the State. Cities such as Los Angeles, Dallas, and Phoenix are also being hit hard. That is also directly affected by the public health for vector-borne viruses.

Funding will also be essential to reduce the building diagnostic backlog or develop a simpler method of testing. The testing process for Zika is cumbersome and costly. In places with local transmission like Florida and Puerto Rico, results have started to take upwards of a month to come back, leaving families in an ongoing chronic state of uncertainty and agony. Appropriating dollars to deal with this emergency is critical to develop a vaccine.

With public health experts pleading for funding to combat Zika, President Obama sent Congress a $1.9 billion funding request to combat the virus on February 22. Well, now it is September 13, 204 days since the request, and thousands of victims later. While the Senate approved $1.1 billion to combat the virus, House leadership has not shown any appetite for this measure. In the meantime, agencies like Health and Human Services are desperately trying to transfer money from other accounts just to make ends meet.

I am frustrated, Mr. Speaker, that here we are discussing a bill that adds $33 billion to our deficit that we don't have when we can least afford to do so, when we are not even talking about these much smaller ticket items that are urgent and that are emergencies. It is frustrating that this body continues to promulgate a double standard around offsetting the cost of legislation.

Expenditures and revenues are two sides of the same coin. If you reduce revenues by $2 billion, it has the exact same impact on the deficit as increasing expenditures by $2 billion. They are the same thing. Yet here we are creating massive fiscally irresponsible holes in our deficit, moving further away from ever balancing it, when we are not even looking at these much smaller ticket items that are much more important and are critical emergencies. We are discussing a bill that adds $33 billion to our deficit.

We continue to avoid dealing with Flint, with opioids, and with Zika, at a small fraction of the cost of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Just give us 10 percent of the cost of this bill--$3 billion--and think of the progress we can make on Flint and opioids and Zika. Instead, we are spending $33 billion in tax expenditures to increase our deficit by over $33 billion. This isn't the way to balance the budget. This isn't the way to run a country.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest rates to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, every one of us has constituents who are struggling with student debt. This legislation gives us an opportunity to provide immediate relief.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what is frustrating in consideration of this deficit-busting, irresponsible, Republican tax-and-spend bill is a double standard. We have a bill before us that would increase the deficit by over $33 billion, yet we are not even allowed to consider these much smaller ticket items that are pressing national emergencies.

Children in Flint still can't bathe or drink tap water because of toxic lead; families in New Hampshire are receiving little help for the opioid addictions ravaging their communities; pregnant women in south Florida are living in fear of the serious health consequences and birth defects related to Zika; and yet there is $33 billion for a tax cut for the wealthy.

What piece am I missing here, Mr. Speaker? How is it that there is $33 billion for a tax expenditure, but there is not even $1 billion or $2 billion or $3 billion to address these pressing issues like Zika or lead or opioids?

A dollar is a dollar. Whether you expend it as a decrease in revenue or an expenditure, it has the exact same economic impact. It increases our budget deficit, already over $400 billion; and here we have a bill that would increase it by over $30 billion.

If we are going to move towards balancing the budget, Mr. Speaker, of course, we need to look at expenditures and we need to look at revenues. That is the only way you are ever going to get there. And it is the exact wrong direction to be decreasing net revenues without even talking about what expenditures you are going to cut.

Again, it would be one thing if we knew what the tradeoffs were, if this bill had an offset for the $33 billion and we said: You know what? This is a worthy tax cut.

The gentleman made a good case for it. Of course, we want to increase deductibility of healthcare expenses. I don't think there is a single person in this body who wouldn't want to do it.

The question is: What is the tradeoff? Where is that $33 billion going to come from?

And let's work together to find a way to pay for it. Right? I mean, let's look at spending less on our military rather than spending more than the rest of the world combined.

You know what? If we cut just $3 billion a year from our bloated military budget, we could fully pay for this tax cut. Sign me up, Mr. Speaker. That would be paid for, and I would support it.

There might be other areas that we could find to work together to pay for this tax cut, but when you are asking us, Mr. Speaker, to say: You know what? I want to pay for this tax cut by mortgaging your children's future, you are not going to get a lot of takers among us fiscally responsible Democrats.

I guess Republicans don't care about the deficit, don't care about mortgaging the future, don't care about leaving our kids further in debt. But you know what? Democrats do. That is why I oppose this bill. Our children are already inheriting an enormous legacy of debt. The last thing we should be doing is adding $33 billion more to that.

I have nothing against this particular expenditure. If there is a way to pay for it, we could do that. We could work with Republicans on it. I would be happy to work with Republicans on it. There are always tradeoffs in life. Nothing comes free. There is no expenditure that is free. There is no reduction in revenue that is free. A dollar is a dollar. Families across our country know that when they are balancing their checkbooks at the end of the month. They know that if they spend more money or they get a bonus at work, it goes into the same pot. And if they get a cut in their salary, that means they have less money to spend.

That is what it should mean to this Congress. If we are going to be taking in $33 billion less, we should spend $33 billion less. We should pay for any tax cut or expenditure on the revenue side and make sure that it doesn't go to mortgaging our children's future by increasing our already bloated budget deficit and contributing to our national debt.

If it wasn't so serious, Mr. Speaker, it would almost be humorous when we hear around raising the debt ceiling time from our Republican friends, Oh, we don't want to increase the debt ceiling, oh, no. The debt ceiling. The debt ceiling. We are not going to increase the debt ceiling.

Well, you know why the debt ceiling reaches its cap, Mr. Speaker?

The reason the debt ceiling needs to be increased is because Congress spends more than it has.

It is too late to complain after the fact, Mr. Speaker. It is too late to complain after the fact. If you, Congress, spend more than you take in, yes, you are going to need to increase the debt ceiling. It is not rocket science. I think even my kindergartener could do the math. It is addition and subtraction. Yet here we are saying: You know what? Let's cut government revenues by $33 billion.

Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker?

If this bill were to become law, we would reach the debt ceiling even earlier. And, of course, Congress would have to blow the lid on the debt ceiling and increase the national debt. It is math. It is simple math, Mr. Speaker, and families across our country understand simple math. They balance their checkbooks.

My home State of Colorado requires a balanced budget every year, just as many other States across the country do. I support a balanced budget amendment here. I think that Congress, like families across our country, like our States, should balance our budget. But even in the absence of that requirement, Congress should act responsibly to do it. And this bill is the opposite. It increases our deficit by over $30 billion. It doesn't pay for it. It mortgages our children's future for a tax expenditure today. It is the wrong way to go for our country.

So while, of course, my Democratic colleagues and I share concern about ensuring access to affordable health care and would be happy to talk about tradeoffs that are involved with any reduction in revenues, H.R. 3590 is simply not the way to do it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on this restrictive, misguided rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source