[Pages H2529-H2532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HONORING WHAT D-DAY HEROES FOUGHT FOR

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Roy of 
Texas was recognized for 30 minutes.)
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I recognize that today is an important day in 
the history of our country. As we all know, 81 years ago, on June 6, 
1944, we had over 150,000 Allied troops who attacked the beaches at 
Normandy, knowing full well what they were walking into.
  You had 150,000 Allied forces, tens of thousands of Americans who 
stormed the beaches, jumped out of boats into stormy waters, walked 
into a virtual wall of bullets, went through the fire, went to the 
cliffs, got shot at on the cliffs, scaled the cliffs, to then have to 
fight for every yard for the privilege of then getting all the way to 
Bastogne to sit in foxholes in the freezing cold on Christmas of 1944 
while being bombarded by Germans as they were mounting their last 
offensive.
  What would cause young men from all over this country to do that? Why 
would they do that, knowing a huge number of them would not make it 
through the day? They knew that, but they did it anyway. They knew that 
when they were jumping out of planes in the middle of the night, many 
of them wouldn't survive.
  I saw yesterday on social media photos of dozens of young men who 
didn't make it through that day, photos from them. They lead up to that 
morning and the day before in training. What would cause these young 
men to do that?
  The reason is that they knew that this country was worth fighting 
for, not simply because of the existence of the country but because of 
what this country represents in terms of opportunity to live free and 
prosper according to your own talents and to be able to live according 
to your own conscience under our Constitution and under the principles 
that were advanced in the Declaration and that are central to Western 
civilization.
  That is what those young men did. We had 400,000-plus Americans who 
lost their lives to defend this country in World War II. Precious few 
who survived that conflict are still alive.
  Madam Speaker, if you go down to the memorial here in Washington, the 
World War II Memorial, there are 4,000-plus stars that are across the 
monument, each representing 100 young men who did what I just described 
or who did something similar in Iwo Jima or did something similar in 
the Doolittle Raid.
  Again, what would cause them to do it? It is to live free. That is 
what it is about.
  I have a letter from a dear friend of mine named Victoria Coates, who 
served in the first Trump administration, from her grandfather Howard. 
I want to read the letter really quickly.
  ``Jane darling, yep, honey, it is true. Your boyfriend is in it now. 
I can't tell you how long I have been here or where I am. That will 
have to come later when I get home. It is the most serious thing I have 
been in during all of my life.
  ``I am well, though, darling, and still all in one piece. As you said 
in the last letter I got from you, the one you wrote on invasion day, I 
am well-trained and will take care of myself.
  ``Of course, the men come first, and our mission, but I am not taking 
any chances personally, except those in the line of duty. Most all of 
our officers and men are reacting fine to these new conditions. I have 
my own platoon and my own headquarters out in the field.
  ``Fact is, I am sitting in my CP now writing this letter. I have 
Charlie Mugford here as my executive officer, and he is very capable in 
the field. My staff sergeant is a boy by name of Varebok from 
Pittsburgh. He is Polish and a darn good man. The Germans killed his 
grandparents in their invasion into Poland, so you can well imagine his 
reaction to all of this.
  ``The morale of the men is good, and that makes the job easier. 
Golly, I like my little field setup. Have good radio equipment, also a 
nice switchboard. . . . I have a Jeep and weapons carrier for my CP, 
plus my CP personnel. . . . We get a special dehydrated ration that 
requires only the adding of a little water. . . . For supper last 
night, we had, as an example, baked beans, sausage, cold-packed 
tomatoes, rice pudding, biscuits, jam and butter, coffee.
  ``I haven't received the picture yet but am very anxiously awaiting 
it. Please write regularly. I need it. We haven't received any mail 
since coming to France but hope to get some soon. That helps plenty.
  ``Well, darling, you are ever in my thoughts over here and are my big 
driving force. I, like the thousands of other Americans, am doing my 
damn best to get this war over with and get home safely to my family.''
  What did they fight for? I can tell you what they didn't fight for. 
They didn't fight for a Congress to come here and continue $36 trillion 
of debt and mortgage their children, their grandchildren, and their 
great-grandchildren's futures.
  They didn't come here for this Congress to run away from the fight of 
policy. They didn't risk everything and walk into a wall of bullets so 
that people in this Chamber can be afraid of tweets or constituents 
that come in and talk about, oh, but you are cutting some program. They 
expected us to actually defend this country in this Chamber.
  A trillion dollars of interest every year--we are spending more on 
interest than on the entirety of our national defense.

                              {time}  1240

  I have to be honest with you, I don't know whether the big, beautiful 
bill is beautiful enough to support. I have to be honest.
  I voted for it off of the floor to send it to the Senate. There were 
a lot of important provisions in it, and I need to level set some of 
those provisions right now because it is not appropriate for us to run 
away from the fight now that these young men 80 years ago ran into the 
fight to preserve.
  This country will not survive if we mortgage it away, and that is 
what we are doing. President Reagan was correct when he said that every 
Member of Congress when they come to this floor and they offer a new 
bill for a new program should all bring a tax increase to go alongside 
of it.
  Because everybody in this Chamber, particularly on this side of the 
aisle, are all too fine offering tax cuts because it is like selling 
dessert, but refuse to put forward the spending cuts so that people 
have to eat the broccoli. That is why we are $36 trillion in debt and 
growing. That is why we have a trillion dollars of interest.
  By the way, as interest rates go up, the price of that debt goes up. 
We are going to be at $1.5 trillion, $2 trillion of interest payments 
because we can't do our job correctly.
  Now, let's go through the big, beautiful bill. The bill is what I 
would call the good, the bad, and the ugly because that is the truth.
  I am not going to get into personalities and squabbles and back and 
forth. The President is right that we need to move a bill through here 
with tax cuts and spending restraint so that he can get the agenda done 
that he campaigned on. He is 100 percent right, and we should do that. 
Elon is right that this bill doesn't cut enough. That is the truth.
  Two things can be true at the same time. The barrier to actually 
achieving the greatness of moving the big, beautiful bill through and 
that would achieve the President's agenda and achieving what Elon is 
rightly saying, which is that we should cut more, the barrier is right 
here in this Chamber. It is right over there in the Senate.
  We have people unwilling to face their constituents and tell them the 
truth. Well, I am going to try to sit here on the floor and tell the 
truth.
  I had to hold my nose to vote for this bill 2 weeks ago off the House 
floor to the Senate. Why? It does not cut enough, and it is not even 
close to cutting enough.
  My colleagues say: Oh, but Chip, it is the biggest spending decrease 
in history. Let's be very clear: It is a reduction in future increases 
of about $1.6 trillion.
  Yes. That is the biggest amount ever. But guess what? We have sizably 
more debt and sizably more spending than ever, so, of course, it should 
be, but it should be more.
  Madam Speaker, $1.6 trillion in cuts on future reductions is really 
about

[[Page H2530]]

$160 billion a year over 10 years. That is the truth. The truth is that 
our whole budget has grown from about $3.6 trillion a decade ago to 
$7.2 trillion now. It has doubled.
  Everybody wants to applaud themselves for $160 billion of reductions 
in increases. I am sorry. I don't think that is good enough. The fact 
is, our budget, the budget we passed to get the big, beautiful bill 
through says that we should be at $6.5 trillion for 2026, but after 
this bill, if it is passed this way out of the Senate, we would be at 
$7.2 trillion.
  That is a lot of numbers. You want me to tell you back home--the fact 
of the matter is, unless we have record economic growth for an entire 
decade, deficits will go up. That is the truth.
  This bill front-loads all of the cost for the first 4 years, 2026, 
2027, 2028, 2029 deficits are up. That is, by the way, on a dynamic 
basis. You are going to hear a lot of people taking shots at the CBO, 
and they should.
  The CBO is biased. The CBO is left leaning, and the CBO doesn't 
always get it right. But guess what? No economist ever gets it right. 
The fact is, we took care of that, at least in part, in the Budget 
Committee by assuming growth. We assumed economic growth of 2.6 
percent, higher than the last two decades averaged, lower than the 
historic average.
  Why does that matter? Because we have already accounted for what you 
call dynamic scoring, meaning the impact of the tax cuts on revenue.
  What does that mean in simple terms? It means that if you look at our 
analysis, even assuming economic growth and more revenue from that 
growth, we will still have $400 billion of deficits added to the 
existing $2 trillion deficit in 2026 because of the bill.
  Those deficits will go up even more and will be another $400 billion 
or so in 2027 and 2028, we add to the deficits, 2029 we add to the 
deficits.

  Finally in 2030, the deficits go down. If you look across the 
entirety of the 10 years under this bill, you are basically--it is 
somewhere around breakeven on the impact on deficits.
  Now, again, everybody understand what I am saying. The deficits of 
roughly around $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion a year will continue. This 
bill will adjust taxes and adjust spending, will increase deficits for 
3 or 4 or 5 years, and then cut deficits in the outer 5 years if you 
believe that will ever happen. Only in this town do you assume that the 
good things will happen in 5 years and accept the bad things in the 
first years, but that is what we are doing.
  Now to be clear and to be fair, this does not account for tariff 
revenue, which is up. Of course, tariff revenue has to be factored into 
the economic impact of the tariffs. You have got to stir all that in 
the pot and decide what you think is going to happen. If you ask me to 
weigh all of this, I will tell you that on the simple question of 
whether this bill will add to or decrease deficits, I think it will add 
to the deficits.
  Because for the first 5 years, even dynamically scored, they add to 
the deficits. Even if you assume the current rate of about--I don't 
know--$250 billion of tariff revenue, which you can't assume because 
they change, you are still going to be adding to the deficits even 
factoring in for the economic impact of growth.
  Okay. That is all a lot of nerdy speak. Everyone sent us here to save 
the country. You can't save the country if you are adding to the 
deficits. You can't save the country if interest rates aren't going to 
be able to go down because you are being fiscally responsible and the 
bond markets respond.
  That is the simple truth, but here we are. Why are we here? Why, 
despite what I just said, did I hold my nose and vote for the bill?
  Well, A, as part of the process and I am hopeful the Senate might 
work its will to make the bill better. Probably not a good bet. The 
Senate rarely makes things better.
  Okay. B, we did get some serious reforms to Medicaid. I am proud of 
those reforms, but I do have to be honest with you, they are kind of 
like breathing.
  When I tell you the reforms, you are going to be, like, wait. We 
don't do that already. We are simply going to reverse a lot of the 
damage of the Biden administration and reverse a lot of the damage of 
the expansion of ObamaCare by simply saying this: You shouldn't be on 
Medicaid if you are able-bodied and can work and you are not working.
  Now, Democrats will say: Oh, you are slashing Medicaid. No, we are 
not. They are not telling you the truth about that. What we are doing 
is simply saying you should have to work. It is the same thing for food 
stamps. My Republican colleagues will say: Oh, my gosh, these are the 
biggest savings in history. This is the greatest thing since sliced 
bread.
  Every American I talk to says: Why weren't you doing that already? It 
is like the basic business of commerce. Why would you do that? Why 
would you provide benefits to people who are able to work and don't? It 
is insane.
  We are going to say: Oh, my gosh, we saved hundreds of billions of 
dollars on Medicaid reform by tightening and making sure we are 
enforcing eligibility and that only the vulnerable get it instead of 
the able-bodied.
  But we are not doing anything to stop the money laundering scam. We 
are not doing anything to stop the fact that expansion States under 
ObamaCare get seven times more money for the able-bodied than the 
vulnerable. We are going to do nothing about that.
  We are going to do nothing about the provider taxes that are part of 
that scam, that have blue States getting money to give money to 
illegals and to people at Planned Parenthood and other things because 
they launder the money through Washington to get a multiple to give it 
to hospitals and insurance companies and then give them a tax break on 
the back end.
  It is well documented, well reported, and this body is doing not a 
damn thing about it because they are too afraid. They are too afraid to 
take on the insurance lobby. They are too afraid to take on the 
hospital lobby. They are too afraid to be honest with the American 
people.

                              {time}  1250

  Yet, I voted for the bill. Why? Because if we don't, we keep 
operating under the current system, which means we keep giving Medicaid 
to people without work requirements.
  Therefore, I am faced with a conundrum: Do I vote for the bill so I 
can actually have the common sense of a Medicaid work requirement start 
in 2026 or do I vote ``no'' on the bill because I think deficits are 
going to go up and I think this is the bare basics of reform we should 
do while we are not doing anything to stop the money laundering scam 
that will likely encourage the 10 nonexpansion States to expand and 
cement ObamaCare permanently?
  This is the Hobson's choice that someone like me or some of my other 
colleagues face, all under the bluster of what this bill does or does 
not do, which 90 percent of the people in this body can't even explain, 
much less the American people or anybody in the media. That is the 
truth.
  We add lots of new tax cuts. Here is the little secret that everybody 
should understand: All of the new tax cuts expire after 4 years or 5 
years. You want to know a classic Washington gimmick? That is one. You 
are getting absolutely the bait-and-switch by Republicans in the House 
and the Senate by saying we are going to have these tax cuts only be 
applied for 4 years because they will expire, don't you know, in 4 
years, so you don't have to score them now. They always say: Don't 
worry, over 10 years this thing, man, it reduces deficits. However, 
they don't score the last 5 years because the tax cuts expire.
  Now, let me ask you a question. If you are watching this, all 12 of 
you on C-SPAN, tell me whether you think if we put in place the $500 
enhanced child tax credit--I don't care whether you like the policy or 
not. I have my concerns with the policy. I think it is a giveaway. I 
don't think it is actually all that helpful. I don't think it creates 
economic growth, but, okay, we are all in the giveaway business in this 
Chamber. We are going to give away another $500 for every child in this 
country, even though it costs thousands to raise them, but we are only 
going to do it for 4 years.
  I am not allowed to speak and address the audience, I have to address 
the Speaker, but for anybody who happens to be listening in the Chamber 
or

[[Page H2531]]

on C-SPAN, would you go to Vegas and bet yes or no that those tax 
credits would be expanded in 5 years? You know damn well they will be 
expanded in 5 years, but we don't score that. That is a Washington 
gimmick.
  There are seven of those, I think, or more of these tax cuts that 
expire in 4 or 5 years but are not then scored for the outer 5 years so 
that everything can balance, but it doesn't. That is $1.6 trillion of 
additional lost revenue.
  Now, again, let me be clear: I support a lot of those policies. I 
don't think we should be taxing Social Security on seniors either at 
all or certainly as much. I don't think we should have taxes--let me 
restate it.
  I think we should give tax benefits for moving manufacturing to the 
United States and give rapid depreciation expensing for those 
companies. I am for that policy. That might actually be one of the few 
that might pay for themselves with the growth.
  How about the auto loan tax deduction? We have got that in there now. 
Well, do you think that is going to pay for itself? Do you think they 
will let that expire in 4 years when everybody is used to deducting 
their auto interest? Maybe it is fine policy, but shouldn't we pay for 
it?
  Shouldn't we have more spending reductions, or are we going to keep 
up the fiction that we can continue to do these policies? All my 
Republican colleagues go: Chip, they all pay for themselves. Are you a 
tax raiser? That is what they do. They go: Chip, you are out there, you 
are saying we have got to raise taxes.
  There is a reason, as I said a minute ago, Ronald Reagan said if you 
come down here with a new idea, you ought to have a tax increase 
attached to it. Everybody in this Chamber cannot say no to the Farm 
Bureau when they come in and they want more money, when the ALS people 
come in and say they need more research, when the cancer people come in 
and say they need more research.
  I am a cancer survivor, and I tell them no because, damn it, we don't 
have any more money. But everybody in this Chamber just says: Okay, we 
are going to authorize more spending, and I am going to go do a tax cut 
because, oh, that is your money, you get to keep your taxes, I agree.
  Let me be clear: They are all going to sit there and play some clip; 
Chip Roy is for tax increases. It is all crap. The truth is everybody 
in this Chamber says every tax cut pays for itself. What if I cut taxes 
to 1 percent? Do those all pay for themselves? No, they don't. And we 
owe $36 trillion.
  Everybody watching this: Your kids, your grandkids, your great-
grandkids are holding the bag because you wanted all your free crap. As 
I have said before in a speech, this is always the United States House 
of free crap, and that is what we do, we just write checks.

  The Inflation Reduction Act, the green new scam, I am going to tell 
you the one reason I voted for this bill--one. Yes, I like the Medicaid 
requirements; yes, I like a lot of the extensions of the tax cuts; yes, 
I like some of the policies that stop funding Planned Parenthood; yes, 
I like some of the policies that stop funding transgender surgeries. 
All of those are good, but in my opinion, we needed more spending 
restraint, if you want to be honest about deficits.
  I voted for this bill for one reason, and this is why I am on the 
floor today, because I need the United States Senate to hear this as 
clearly as I can say it: We got restrictions on the green new scam to 
ensure that about 55 or 60 percent of those subsidies that are going to 
enrich billion dollar corporations to put money in the pockets of the 
Chinese, to undermine our grid with unreliable energy and undermine 
natural gas and undermine nuclear, all while bolstering wind and solar, 
which is littering our fields and littering our landscape, all to 
provide unreliable energy.
  We fought like hell to get restrictions on that, to get 60 percent of 
the green new scam basically terminated. The President campaigned on 
terminating all of it, but this weak-ass Congress and Senate are going 
to not do that because, oh, we can't disrupt the existing flow of the 
$400 billion of subsidies going into the pockets of all those big 
companies raking in the money so they can get free money. While you 
guys all subsidize, they are getting rich, and your grid gets weaker.
  This Congress is going to do that, and we fought like cats and dogs 
to get that 60 percent. Everybody in town, the K Street lobbyists are 
freaking out: Oh, no, we are not going to be able to have our subsidies 
to build more wind farms and solar farms. We are going to have more 
giveaways because their energy won't compete. That is the one reason I 
voted for this bill.
  My message to the Senate: This will get clipped. It will get sent to 
the Senate. I am looking at you, Thom Tillis. I am looking at you over 
there in the Senate, you backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies, and 
I am voting against this bill. I want the White House to hear it. I 
want the Senate to hear it because it is the only reason I voted for 
this bill. Those God-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing 
our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our 
freedom, and I am not going to have it.
  You do what you want to do in the Senate, House of Lords, have your 
fun, but if you mess up the Inflation Reduction Act green new scam 
subsidies, I ain't voting for that bill. We have a duty to actually 
honor those who fought 81 years later.
  All these colleagues of mine, both sides of the aisle, they will go 
out. You watch, today, D-day, there will be a tweet from everybody. 
June 14, the 250th birthday of the Army, there will be a tweet from 
everybody. July 4, they will get in their parades, they will walk 
around with the flag. They will kiss babies. Yay.
  What will they do on Veterans Day?
  What did they do on Memorial Day?
  What are we doing to actually honor the memory of those who gave the 
last full measure of devotion, who walked into the wall of bullets, who 
died for this country? So that we can be $36 trillion in debt? So that 
we can subsidize the green new scam? So that we can run away from the 
fight of having a tough conversation with constituents that there, in 
fact, is no more room in the inn, that we are out of money?
  I have got to tell you; this bill does not meet the moment. I voted 
for it because I believe strongly in stopping those green new scam 
subsidies and for a variety of other good provisions, but we ought to 
do better. The Senate ought to do better. If the Senate weakens it, 
shame on the Senate. If the House just takes it, shame on the House.
  The President of the United States campaigned on terminating the 
green new scam. We should terminate it.
  The President of the United States said that we should get rid of 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. Well, we should, including the 
money laundering scam enriching blue States at the expense of red 
States, expansion States at the expense of nonexpansion States, and 
enriching the able-bodied at the expense of the vulnerable.
  The President campaigned on tax relief. We should deliver it. But we 
should have the commensurate spending cuts to go alongside of it to 
ensure that deficits go down to do what the President also campaigned 
on, which is balancing the budget of the United States.
  I do not believe this bill yet will do that. We will see what the 
Senate does over the next week, but we will do a disservice to the 
memories of those that we are celebrating today on the 81st anniversary 
of D-day, and we will do a disservice to the memory of all those who 
came before us who fought and died and bled for this country. But more 
importantly, we will do a disservice to their ancestors, a disservice 
to our kids and our grandkids, who are the ones left holding the bag of 
rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a bond market that is 
teetering on the edge of a knife's edge because we refuse to do our 
job.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to do it. I hope the Senate will 
step up and make this bill better.
  If they leave it the same, they can send it to the President's desk. 
If they leave it basically the same and they send it back, I guess a 
lot of us will hold our nose again and say: Well, I guess that is the 
best this Congress is capable of doing.
  It is like General Patton's quote in the movie:
  `` `What did you do in the great World War II'? You won't have to 
say, `Well, I shoveled crap in Louisiana.' ''

[[Page H2532]]

  What is Congress going to say that they did at this moment in time 
and in history to save this country? I hope the Senate will listen and 
make this bill better. I hope they will make it deserving of the 
President's campaign and mandate and deliver for the American people. 
They better darn well not backslide.
  Frankly, it was hard to hold my nose to vote for that bill in the 
first place because I am over a barrel. I am trying to actually make 
Medicaid work, trying to make these subsidies get repealed, and trying 
to do the job that the President campaigned on, while we are too 
inclined to want to have giveaways that don't simply add up.
  This is a moment for us to rise up and deliver. I hope the Senate 
will do it, and I hope the House will follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Members are reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.

                          ____________________