Gluesenkamp Perez Statement on Senate Passage of Budget Reconciliation Bill

Today, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) released the following statement regarding the Senate passage of a partisan budget reconciliation bill.

In May, the Congresswoman voted against the House version of the bill, and it now is returning from the Senate with changes for another vote:

“Somehow, the Senate managed to make a terrible bill even worse for Southwest Washington.

It burdens our kids with even more reckless debt, adding more than $4 trillion to our national debt over the next decade – a $1 trillion increase from the House bill I voted against.

It gives even more freebies to the wealthiest Americans, costing the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers roughly $560 a year to give the top 1 percent a $32,265 yearly handout.

It strips even more Americans of healthcare coverage, by gutting Medicaid and suffocating hardworking families with even more red tape.

328,695 people in our state stand to lose healthcare, and rural hospitals across Southwest Washington would lose tens of millions of dollars – which could put these vital lifelines at risk for collapse.

Not to mention, the bill still drives up costs for energy and healthcare premiums.

It undermines the economic power of hardworking Southwest Washington families and increases the red tape separating us from durable health – all to advance the short-term wealth of the well-to-do.

This bill is a bloated product of single-party control and a concoction of special favors for special interests – and it leaves everyday Americans carrying the bag.

There was bipartisan opposition to this bill, but it was jammed through the Senate with a tie-breaking vote and budgetary gimmicks that hide the true cost of the legislation.

Still, the Majority has shown no appetite for bipartisanship, despite the House Blue Dogs offering to help reach a more balanced, fiscally-responsible outcome.

As this bill returns to the House, I encourage my Republican colleagues to return to the drawing board and reflect on how this reckless proposal might harm their constituents.”