Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6767-H6775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3393, STUDENT AND FAMILY TAX
SIMPLIFICATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4935, CHILD
TAX CREDIT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 680

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the

[[Page H6768]]

House the bill (H.R. 3393) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to consolidate certain tax benefits for educational
expenses, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4935) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make improvements to the
child tax credit. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 113-54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3393 the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 4935, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 3393;
(2) conform the title of H.R. 3393 to reflect the addition
of H.R. 4935, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 4935, as passed
by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 3393, H.R. 4935
shall be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 1 hour.

{time} 1345

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of two measures, H.R. 3393, the
Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, and H.R. 4935, the Child Tax
Credit Improvement Act of 2014.
The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of these two
measures, as is customary with tax legislation. In addition, the
resolution provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for
both H.R. 3393 and H.R. 4935. And it provides for a motion to recommit
on each bill.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule combines both H.R. 3393 and H.R.
4935 before sending it to the other body.
Madam Speaker, with tuition prices continuing to climb, more
Americans are struggling to plan for and afford higher education.
Today's broken Tax Code makes it even harder to pay for college, with
15 complicated, overlapping education provisions that take the IRS 90
pages to explain.
We need to simplify education tax benefits so families can actually
use them, and we need to get our economy back on track so students and
families are earning enough to afford a good education.
H.R. 3393 takes a good first step. It consolidates four current tax
benefits for higher education, the American opportunity tax credit, the
Hope Scholarship credit, the lifetime learning credit, and the college
tuition deduction into a new, simplified and, most importantly,
permanent tax credit.
In addition, H.R. 3393 also includes strong antifraud provisions
requiring taxpayers to include on their tax return the name and
taxpayer identification number of the student and the employer
identification number of the applicable higher education institution.
In addition, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4935, which
modernizes and improves the child tax credit. Originally created in
1997 to help ease the financial burden that families incur when they
have children, this credit has failed to keep pace with the cost of
raising a child. Initially, it provided a maximum credit of $400 per
child. However, under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this credit was
expanded to $1,000 per child, was made partially refundable, and was
indexed for inflation.
Unfortunately, some of these good changes expired in 2010. I would
note for my colleagues that even with these increases, since 1960, the
cost of raising a child has increased by approximately 4.4 percent a
year.
H.R. 4935 would index the child tax credit for inflation, eliminate
the marriage penalty, and would require an individual to include their
Social Security number on their tax return to claim the refundable
portion of the child tax credit.
Current estimates suggest that at least $13 billion in improper
refundable tax credit payments are made each year. This provision would
help to combat that growing problem.
Madam Speaker, the cost of raising children increases every year, but
the current child tax credit fails to take these increased costs into
account. In addition, the current tax credit penalizes married couples.
By making these commonsense changes, we can ensure that the credit
truly serves its intended purpose.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation, which continues our targeted approach to
updating, improving, and modernizing the Tax Code.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing the great State of
Colorado, where we hope to have you visit my district and ski in Vail,
or perhaps enjoy the comfortable, temperate summer weather in our
mountain resort area.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bills, H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of
2014, and H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act.
These two so-called extender bills, which are among several that this
body has considered, are all unpaid for.
Instead of allowing amendments on these bills, they are brought
before us under an entirely closed process that blocks efforts by
either Democrats or Republicans to come up with new and better ways to
improve the effectiveness of these tax cuts, or to provide offsetting
cuts to expenditures or closing other revenue loopholes that would pay
for these tax cuts. So, essentially, this is not a real proposal before
us today.
I think that the child tax credit and Student and Family Tax
Simplification Act are widely popular on both sides of the aisle, but
real policy discussion is how we pay for them. That is the real
discussion. That is what the House and the Senate will need to
negotiate. That is what the President will need to negotiate.
I am happy to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to come up with corresponding cuts so that these can be paid for. But,
under this closed rule, we are not even able to have a discussion of
that. We are considering yet another set of unpaid-for tax extender
bills that will add to our deficit.
Now, at the beginning of this year, Chairman Camp put forward a true,
revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform bill. That was a real attempt
to not add to our ballooning deficit and reduce taxes. To be clear,
this is not.
While I oppose this bill, I certainly support the intention of the
American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is to provide incentives for
people across the

[[Page H6769]]

country to pursue higher education, and I look forward to the real
discussion of how we pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees.
Students can receive a maximum annual credit of $2,500 for pursuing
college, vocational school, or a university to help them pursue their
dreams of achieving a postsecondary education, which is more important
than ever to have a chance at succeeding in the 21st century workforce.
I am pleased the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized
the AOTC to help both undergraduate and graduate students pay for their
studies. I am thrilled the Republicans now support extending provisions
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That is a positive
development for families across our country.
In my home district of Colorado, I am pleased to have two flagship
research universities, Colorado State University and the University of
Colorado at Boulder, which are leading the way in undergraduate and
graduate education and research that benefits our communities and our
health.

Students at these universities shouldn't have to spend their time
wondering how the Tax Code will affect their ability to pay for books
and tuition. They should be learning. They should be engaged in
research and innovation to grow our economy, and not have to play the
guessing game about what Congress does, which this bill, unpaid for,
only furthers.
Now, while this legislation would extend the AOTC to help more
traditional students, unfortunately, it would take away educational
benefits from the majority of students today.
By replacing the Hope Scholarship Credit and eliminating the Lifetime
Learning Credit, we will harm adult learners and those who might have
lost their jobs in one sector and are trying to get training to go into
another growing sector so that they can improve their life station.
Many students who use the Lifetime Learning Credit, which has no
limit on the number of years it can be claimed for each student, are
low-income Americans, out-of-work Americans, folks who we want to get
back to work so they are not reliant on government programs.
Madam Speaker, why would we remove a tax credit that provides
incentives for adults to learn throughout their lives at a time in our
economy where it is more important than ever to do so?
We need to recognize the changing demographics and ensure that our
tax system aligns with the real needs of 21st century learners.
That is why the major higher education associations, including the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American
Council on Education, and the Association of American Universities all
oppose this legislation. These colleges and universities want to make
higher education more affordable, not just for traditional students but
for lifelong learners as well.
I applaud my colleagues for recognizing the challenge of college
affordability. I applaud my colleagues for basing a program around
expiring provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
I was thrilled that just yesterday the House passed H.R. 3136, the
Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act, which I
coauthored with Representative Salmon, by a vote of 414-0. How
wonderful the Democrats and Republicans were able to come together
around a practical method to reduce costs and improve the quality of
college.
While this legislation would provide much-needed relief for some
students, it is far from making college more affordable for everybody.
Unfortunately, the legislation called forth under this rule would
actually increase our Federal deficit by approximately $96.5 billion
over 10 years.
Let's have a real discussion about making college more affordable.
Let's have a real discussion about paying for it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend. We do agree
conceptually on quite a bit in terms of the Tax Code. I think both of
us individually, and both sides collectively, honestly want to do
things that make it easier for people to pursue a higher education.
Certainly, I think we are all interested in eliminating the marriage
penalty as well. So I think we are moving broadly in the same
direction, even though we have some disagreement.
I will point out to my friend that it is not unusual that tax
legislation would come to the floor in a closed rule. As a matter of
fact, that is almost always the way it is done, simply because you have
to be able to score the items, and you have to understand what the real
cost of tweaking is.
So whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, a closed rule is
usually the order of the day on any tax legislation.
I appreciate my friend's concern about the deficit, and in that I am
quite sincere.
Now, I do also always like to point out to my friends that when they
were in the majority, for 4 years in a row the deficit got greater each
year. And since we have been in the majority the last 4 years the
deficit has gotten smaller each year.
So I actually think that we not only have a rhetorical concern about
the deficit, we have demonstrated over and over again that certainly
this current majority is very, very serious about dealing with it and
will continue to do that by reining in spending and putting forward
thoughtful reform proposals, which I believe we have done.
I would also point out to my friend, and I think he would agree with
me on this, this is a vehicle. This is not going to be the final
product. My friend is exactly correct when he says there will be a
negotiation.
Our concern has been, watching what has been going on on the other
side of the rotunda, so to speak, is that there hasn't been very much
serious work. We think they are going to look at the extenders package
in terms of tax relief and basically just try and jam that through
without any thoughtful pruning and without making elements of it which
have been approved over and over and over again, and which are clearly
popular on a bipartisan basis, permanent.
So that is what we are trying to do. I think we are constructing a
platform to go into negotiation with the Senate. And I suspect what
emerges will be somewhat different than what either side goes in with.
That is pretty normal in the legislative process.
But I think the concepts here that we are moving forward on are
correct and, I think, have broad popular appeal and bipartisan support.
These are provisions--and we have done this over several bills now--
that both parties have approved overwhelmingly, time and time again on
a sort of yearly basis. And we want to take those things and make them
permanent.
I suspect, in that process, some things that are less popular might
be jettisoned. But again, that is for the negotiators to decide. We are
simply trying to get to that conference.
We are marking out what our position is. We recognize the Senate will
have to do the same thing, and from there we will move and, perhaps, at
a later point in this process we can find ourselves actually on the
same side.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from the State of
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my fellow Rules Committee Member and RSC
president now, rapid ascent, to make whatever remarks he cares to.

{time} 1400

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the
time.
Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee has a tough job, but it is
interesting to hear folks down here talking about both their agreement
on tax reform and deficits and their agreement about what a rule ought
to look like.
I have kind of gotten a little bit of both of their passions with me
today, Madam Speaker, because Ways and Means bills do have to come to
the floor under a closed rule.
The way the rules work, if you have an open rule, anything that is
relevant to the underlying bill, you can discuss, so when you bring a
tax bill to the floor, suddenly, the entire Tax Code becomes available
for amendment, and you can imagine what a brouhaha that would be. I
would enjoy that debate. I would thoroughly enjoy that debate, but it
would never, ever end.

[[Page H6770]]

That is not so with our spending bills. When our spending bills come
to the floor, they come under a completely open process, so that we can
examine the underlying spending.
Just to take folks through the Rules Committee process a little bit,
Madam Speaker, what we did here is we waived the CutGo provision in the
rules. There are a lot of focus groups going on around the Chamber
right now about how we should change the rules to make the system work
better.
Sometimes, in the Rules Committee, we end up waiving some of the
rules to make the system work better. Some folks think it makes it work
better, some folks think it makes it worse, but we should have that
conversation as a body.
We had to waive CutGo in this rule, Madam Speaker, because it
increases mandatory spending. I have a bill beside me--and it really
drives this point home. In fact, I think it was the gentleman from
Colorado who was making this point.
We voted on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill this year. It
was a $3 billion spending bill. We had eight amendments on the floor of
the House. It passed. We voted on the Financial Services spending bill.
It was a $21 billion spending bill. We had 51 amendments on that bill.
We passed it out of the House.
We voted on the Energy and Water spending bill, a $34 billion
spending bill, with 78 amendments on the floor of the House. We voted
on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, a $51 billion bill, with 84
amendments on the floor of the House. It goes on: Transportation, $52
billion, with 68 amendments; Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, $71 billion, with 24 amendments.
It brings us to one of the underlying bills today, a bill that I
think touches the heart of absolutely every man or woman in this
Chamber, our constituents back home, trying to help our children access
the higher education services that they need, but in this case, it is
going to increase mandatory spending by $73 billion--more than any of
the appropriations bills we passed this year, except for our Defense
Department Appropriations bill--and it is not going to be able to allow
a single amendment on the floor of the House.
Now, that is just the process. That is the process that we have when
we are dealing with tax bills, but my question for my colleagues is:
Does mandatory spending deserve some additional scrutiny, the kind of
scrutiny that we give to appropriated spending, to discretionary
spending? I will tell you that it does. I am so proud of what this
House does on discretionary spending.
My friend from Oklahoma happens to be an appropriator. He is an
appropriations cardinal, in fact, which means he has leadership
responsibilities over there. This committee comes to the Rules
Committee--and my friend from Colorado recognizes this--they come to
the Rules Committee, and they ask for an open rule every single time.
They say: We have done the best we can do to give the House our
proudest work, but if anybody else has ideas about how to improve it,
come to us. We want this to be a collaborative product.
We can't do that with this bill before us today, and it increases
mandatory spending by $73.7 billion. I cannot count the number of times
I have heard my colleagues in this body say it is not the
appropriations spending that is the problem. It is the mandatory
spending that is the problem.
We are moving awfully fast in the body this week to appropriate $73.7
billion in new mandatory spending. I know people's hearts and heads are
with these young people that we are trying to help get ahead, that we
are trying to help access higher education, but there is only one place
we are going to find this $73.7 billion, and that is in the pocketbooks
of those very same young men and women when we borrow this money today
to spend it on them and ask them to pay it back, with interest in the
future.
I caution my colleagues today, spending is a constitutional
responsibility that we have. It is a constitutional responsibility that
we have placed in the Appropriations Committee, where things are
scrutinized line by line by line.
Never before this year has so much money gone out the door in so
little amount of time, with so little input from the very capable
Members on both sides of the aisle.
With that, again, I encourage my colleagues to read this rule. You
will support this rule, but examine the underlying legislation
carefully.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to take all this in. I certainly agree with
his premise that we need to talk about mandatory spending. I think that
there is a bipartisan desire to do that, and several years ago, there
was a thoughtful Bowles-Simpson proposal that began to take on some of
those issues.
I think that it is a discussion that--particularly when
nondiscretionary spending is the vast majority of Federal spending, you
can only do so much on the discretionary side, so it is very important
to do that.
Clearly, all of these tax extenders and tax expenditures and
mandatory spending through outlays and Social Security and Medicare,
that is what that discussion is about. It is a very important one. This
bill is yet another one that kicks the ball down the road, doesn't deal
with any of those issues, and doesn't allow for any consideration of
those issues.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an
amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the Bring
Jobs Home Act. This bill creates a new tax credit to provide an
incentive for U.S. companies to move jobs from overseas back to America
and will end the tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs.
Instead of considering two tax bills that hurt American families and
bloat the deficit, let's consider one that brings American jobs home.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I urge
my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so that we can offer an
amendment to consider my legislation, H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs Home
Act. Yesterday, it passed in the Senate 93-7.
Now, there is something fundamentally wrong if we can't get a boost
here, and it passes 93-7 across the board, Democrats and Republicans.

So what are we talking about here? An ``aye'' vote for the previous
question is a vote to keep giving corporate America a tax break for
every job they ship overseas to China. Let's start there.
Over the last few weeks, I heard a lot about corporate welfare in
reference to the Export-Import Bank, before we debate it next week. It
costs the government not one dime to help out the businesses. In fact,
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has 255,000 jobs in jeopardy in
Oklahoma.
The Bring Jobs Home Act ends taxpayer writeoffs that pay moving costs
when companies ship jobs abroad. We, as a body, have supported in the
past giving money to businesses and corporations that send jobs
overseas. That does not make sense.
What we want to do is to help those companies to come back because
these are good-paying jobs. That is how manufacturing jobs primarily
left this country.
Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million American jobs have been shipped
overseas, and U.S. taxpayers have helped foot the bill. That, to me, is
insanity. It is like paying someone for the rope they are going to hang
you with.
Economists estimate that across the country, over 21 million jobs are
at risk of being outsourced, 500,000 of them in my own home State of
New Jersey.
At a time when we are trying to create good-paying manufacturing jobs
in the United States, it quite simply makes no sense for the U.S.
taxpayers to help foot the bill for companies that want to outsource
jobs instead. My bill ends this taxpayer subsidy once and for all.
Instead, the Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a new 20 percent tax
credit for companies that bring jobs back to the United States of
America. This will provide a substantial incentive for more and more
companies to create jobs and invest right here in our own country.
We are already seeing a trend towards insourcing. Manufacturing
employment is up by 600,000 jobs since the

[[Page H6771]]

end of the Great Recession, and for the first time, in 2013, companies
were reshoring jobs at the same rate that they offshored them. We have
still got a big hole to dig ourselves out of from 2003, with up to
150,000 jobs being offshored each month. We are still out of balance by
about 1 million jobs.
Companies like Master Lock, Caterpillar, Ford, GE, and Walmart even--
which is not one of my favorites--are starting to see the value in
bringing manufacturing back to this country. We have got the R&D, the
infrastructure, the educated workforce, and we have got the consumers,
and, again, we have the most productive workers in the world.
It is not just the big guys. More than 80 percent of companies
bringing work back have $200 million or less in sales, so let's give
these companies a little extra incentive to make it in America by
providing them with this tax credit to help our manufacturing economy
continue its rebound.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. A robust manufacturing-based economy will lead to
widespread prosperity for businesses and the people who work there.
Manufacturing jobs pay 23 percent more than workers in other parts of
the economy, and every $1 in manufacturing sales creates $1.40 worth of
economic impact.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop the shortsighted policies that stifle
investment here in America and focus on what we can do to incentivize
investment and job creation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have opened quite a range of things to talk about
with Mr. Woodall's remarks and Mr. Polis' response and my good friend
from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell's proposal. Let me sort of take some of
them up in order.
My friend from Colorado, who I know is sincere, talked a little bit
about the need to reform entitlements, and I couldn't agree with him
more, and that is a discussion I think we really, seriously need to
engage in as a body.
I would invite my friend, if he has an opportunity, to look at a
bipartisan bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney)--from
his side of the aisle--and I have on Social Security reform.
It doesn't really deal with a lot of the reform, but it is a process
bill. It would send us down the road to have a bipartisan proposal
which, I can assure you, would have things that your side doesn't like
and things that my side doesn't like, and then we would have to vote on
it up or down.
I think it is a thoughtful way to try to begin to deal with some of
these, and it is genuinely bipartisan, so I would hope my friend from
Colorado would look at that.
My friend from New Jersey mentioned the Ex-Im Bank. I couldn't agree
with him more. I support it. I have consistently supported it, and I
know there is a disagreement on our side of the aisle, I think, largely
about that.
I hope that it is resolved in regular order--that is, that the
committee votes on it and it comes down to the floor. When that
happens, I look forward to working with my friend to enact that
legislation.
I am intrigued by what my friend from New Jersey had to say about his
tax proposal because I think, at the minimum, he has certainly put his
finger on an important problem which is a real loophole that we ought
to consider.
Now, I don't consider myself an expert on tax legislation. I am like
my friend in the chair. I am an appropriator. That is the world I know.
So I would hope that my friend's proposal would get appropriate
consideration in our Ways and Means body and move through regular order
because I think this is an area that we can cooperate on.
Frankly, we have got some bipartisan proposals in terms of stranded
profits overseas that I think both sides could work together on,
perhaps, and bring some investment back to our shores, but we do have
to defend the process whereby we move legislation--that is it needs to
come through the appropriate committee, we duly consider it, and it
reaches here.
Again, while I may oppose the process by which my friend is moving, I
am not at all prepared to say I oppose his product. I just simply
haven't had a chance to look at it, but I think he is addressing an
important issue.
The last area I do have to disagree with my friend on a little bit: I
do like Walmart. I am a shopper at Walmart, and I am a stockholder at
Walmart, and I think they are a great American company, but we live in
a great country. My friend can shop where he chooses to, and I can shop
where I choose to, and we will get down the road.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1415

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a Walmart near where I live, so
I don't have that same choice.
I would add that I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
I think the frustration around the process is we are open to any
process of bringing forward the ideas that Mr. Pascrell talked about to
the floor, and we are presenting them in this context. There is a
growing frustration on a number of issues, whether it is fixing our
broken immigration system, whether it is extending unemployment, or
whether it is how we are paying for these tax cuts. We want to avail
ourselves of every procedural opportunity for this House to consider
the items that matter to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for American jobs and good
government. I rise to support the Bring Jobs Home Act.
Our current corporate tax law is broken. Today, companies that move
American jobs overseas are able to take tax deductions for relocating
jobs outside the United States. Let me say that again. Companies
located here in the United States are able to take tax deductions for
moving American jobs overseas.
Don't we have that backwards? Shouldn't we give tax deductions to
those moving jobs back home, back to America? The Bring Jobs Home Act
will provide for not only an end to company rewards for shipping jobs
overseas, it will also provide companies an incentive to restore jobs
in America.
Right in my home State of Illinois, over 690,000 jobs are at risk of
being sent overseas. At a time when we are desperately trying to grow
the job market in our country, we simply cannot, in good conscience,
let the American taxpayer foot the moving bill for megacorporations.
When I was a young man, I worked the assembly line at Caterpillar,
just like my father did. We put in a hard day's work for an honest
day's pay. Caterpillar understood the importance of keeping jobs here
in America. In the last few years, Caterpillar has been bringing jobs
back to the U.S., back to my home State of Illinois, just like GE and
Ford have. Let's give them the incentive they deserve for doing the
right thing.
Join me in supporting this bill so we can bring jobs home.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I care to consume.
Again, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, I frankly have no objection
to my friends' using the process to bring these ideas up for debate and
discussion. I actually think that is helpful and that moves the process
forward, and I applaud them for that. I don't disagree necessarily with
what they are talking about in terms of tax deductions for jobs that
are exported as opposed to jobs that could be imported. I think that is
something we ought to consider.
But, it is not the subject of the legislation that is in front of us
today. Those subjects are, one, what can we do to modernize the Tax
Code and give students permanent certainty in terms of tax deductions
that are available to educate themselves and give their families the
ability to deal a little bit with the mounting cost of college. That is
a good idea. Both sides can broadly agree at least in principle. And
what can we do to make sure the marriage penalty disappears and that we
can target appropriate tax relief to families with

[[Page H6772]]

children at least up to a certain level of income, I believe $150,000,
to give them a little break with the cost of raising children.
Those, to me, are modest steps, but they are important programs
because they affect the daily lives of American workers. I am not
suggesting that what my friends are proposing doesn't do the same
thing. I just think this vehicle, we probably ought to work within the
bounds of what Ways and Means has sent us.
I will say, I sense some of my friend's frustration in terms of
moving legislation. We have got 321 bills sitting in the United States
Senate that haven't been acted upon that this House has sent over
there, so I know a lot about feeling shut out. I think if our friends
on our side of the aisle in the upper Chamber were here, they would
tell you that they have had fewer amendments this year than Democrats
in this Chamber have gotten on any appropriations bill that we have
brought forward. We don't have a broken Congress. We have a broken
United States Senate, in my view.
But, having said that, we have got a chance, I think, here to take a
step in the right direction, to thoughtfully consider things that have
worked their way through the Ways and Means Committee, to position this
Chamber to sit down at a later point and negotiate with our friends--
Republican and Democrat alike--in the other Chamber and perhaps
produce, toward the end of this year, some good and permanent changes
in the Tax Code that, if an agreement is reached, I suspect we could
have overwhelming bipartisan support for.
So, we are just at that point in the process where we need to develop
and put forward our proposals. We would hope that our counterparts in
the United States Senate do the same thing, and that we can sit down
and again find common ground in between. We have done that on some
occasions before. If we will just operate the way our procedures are
set up, I am confident we can do that again.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I would like to
inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.
Mr. COLE. I am certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill here before us today are yet
another symbolic bill, and when this House only has another week in
session before September, we are passing a bill that doesn't move here
or there on the actual renewal of these tax credits, doesn't deal with
the deficit or entitlement spending, and doesn't deal with immigration
reform. It is a bill to presumably show the public that Republicans
care about this particular tax credit as do, of course, Democrats.
But there is no real effort to figure out how we are going to pay for
it. We would all love to cut every tax. Why not cut every tax down to
zero and not tax anybody? But where is the money coming from?
It is the same with this. It is a feel-good, meaningless gesture that
I, frankly, think the American people see through, which is why this
body's approval rating hovers around 12 percent.
The bill makes in order the child tax credit improvement and costs
$115 billion over 10 years. Un-offset costs of this cost each taxpayer
$2,600.
Aside from the significant cost this imposes on the American people,
there are also some substantive concerns that we talked about. While
the bill would give some families a permanent tax break, it would
actually harm our most vulnerable women and children. Specifically, the
bill fails to extend a critical provision of CTC, which has helped low-
income, working families lift themselves out of poverty.
The bill also indexes the current maximum credit of $1,000 per child
to inflation, which only benefits those with incomes high enough to
receive the maximum benefit. Further, the bill extends the child tax
credit up the income scale on a permanent basis, allowing only families
who make over six figures to benefit.
Ironically, on the same day that Representative Paul Ryan is
unveiling his antipoverty plan, this particular proposal before us--
which we are not allowed to offer our suggestions to amend under this
closed rule--would actually push 12 million more people, including 6
million children, into poverty.
Unfortunately, there has been a provision added to this bill at the
Rules Committee that would bar children who are American citizens but
have immigrant parents from receiving the tax credit. This bill
includes a provision that only allows the tax credit to be claimed if
the taxpayer has a Social Security number, even if they are claiming
the credit for children who have a Social Security number and are full
American citizens.
This impact is huge. It would deny 5.5 million poor American children
from being able to receive this tax credit, deny millions of U.S.
citizens much-needed assistance for being able to afford their rent,
clothing, and food just because of who their parents are. That is not
right and that is not just.
It is no wonder that groups that care about this from across the
ideological spectrum, including the National Women's Law Center, First
Focus Campaign for Children, Half in Ten, Children's Defense Fund,
National Immigration Law Center, and the National Council of La Raza,
have all come out in strong opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it would be disgraceful if one of the only votes we took
on immigration this year was to roll back benefits for U.S. citizens
who happen to have parents who violated our law. With 1 week left
before the August recess, Republicans, unfortunately, have little time
to introduce and pass a bill that actually deals with immigration and
addresses the crisis at our border.
President Obama sent a request to Congress to address the increased
flow of families and unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras,
and Guatemala across our border. As you know, these families that I had
the opportunity to visit with this last weekend in McAllen, Texas, in
San Antonio, at Lackland Air Force Base, are fleeing horrific
situations, often including gangs, rape, murder, trafficking, and
extreme poverty, and are seeking refuge in this great country just as
my own great-grandparents did, as well as that of many of my
colleagues.
This problem with the crisis at the southern border is only one of so
many symptoms about our dysfunctional immigration system, which is why
Congress needs to bring forward the bipartisan H.R. 15 bill for a vote
and allow that to proceed to the Senate and President Obama's desk to
resolve this crisis.
It is unconscionable to think that the only immigration-related
legislation that the House actually may pass in the 113th Congress
could be one aimed at cutting off benefits to American children or
deporting children. We continue to fail to move any immigration reform
bills to the floor this entire Congress. This body has already had the
opportunity to act on legislation that passed the Senate by a
bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds and that the President would
sign.
H.R. 15, our House bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill,
which I am a proud sponsor of, would create American jobs, ensure we
are more competitive in a global economy, lower the deficit, reflect
our values as Americans, unite families, secure our border, and restore
some sense of normalcy and law to the chaos that now surrounds our
immigration system.
The American people overwhelmingly support immigration reform, but,
unfortunately, House Republicans continue to not allow a vote on reform
and have failed to bring forward a bill to address the dire
humanitarian crisis at our border. And here in this bill, we have
another bill to cut off benefits to American kids just because of who
their parents are.
I cannot support this closed rule and these underlying bills. They
will add to our deficit. They fail to address some of the most critical
issues of our time, and they have significant policy flaws that make
these particular programs worse for some of our American families that
need the credits the most.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?

[[Page H6773]]

There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me address a number of remarks my friend made in passing. Let me
begin by reminding anybody who happens to be listening or following the
debate this isn't an immigration bill. This is actually a tax bill, and
it is really about trying to make some things that have had bipartisan
support permanent.
We all agree that we need to, insofar as we can, help people that are
educating themselves or members of their family and provide appropriate
tax relief. That is what this bill does. It is simply that simple.
Number two, we all think that you shouldn't have a tax penalty for
being married, and if we can do things to help you with the cost of
raising a family, we ought to try and do those things because it has
been tough. That is what this bill does.
Now, we can disagree about the merits, but I think the general thrust
is something we probably broadly agree on. Making those items permanent
within the Tax Code is important so people can actually get used to
using the benefits, understand them--sort of internalize them--and make
them permanent and predictable for families. So that is our goal with
this legislation.
Finally, we would like to get, eventually, to a conference with our
friends in the Senate who I suspect would share some of my friend from
Colorado's concerns that might be in their legislation. He knows how
the process works. We will sit down at that point and see if we can
find common ground. If the two negotiating teams can, then I suspect we
will come back with something that a great number of us on both sides
of the aisle can support.
What my friend, Mr. Camp, the chairman of Ways and Means, is trying
to do is actually make permanent some very good bipartisan ideas that I
think we can rally around.
Now, my friend also mentioned the deficit, and I want to, again, laud
his concern for that. I appreciate that. I genuinely do. I recognize
this is a work in progress, not a final product, but I will point out
again for the record, when my friends were in the majority, the deficit
got worse every single year. It has gotten lower every single year
since then. So I think we are serious about dealing with the deficit.
I would invite my friend, and I know he would seriously engage in
this, let's find some areas on the part of the budget that I think need
addressing--the entitlement area--where perhaps we can find some common
ground.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. There is no doubt that it takes both parties working
together to dig the country into this much debt.
Mr. COLE. I do want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points.
Number one, this isn't a symbolic piece of legislation. It is
legislation in progress, but it is not feel-good. I know Mr. Camp and
his committee are anxious to actually change many aspects of the Tax
Code.

{time} 1430

I know Mr. Camp wants to make at least some of these things
permanent. We may succeed or we may not, but it is certainly not meant
to be anything other than serious.
Also, my friend mentioned and talked at considerable length about the
issue of immigration and the border crisis, two issues that I regard as
somewhat distinct. We do have a border crisis, and I suspect we will
see legislation to deal with that. There is a difference in philosophy.
I think the administration just wants resources to manage it. I think
we would like to change some of the root causes and address it, and
hopefully stop the massive flow and all of the human tragedy that goes
with it.
There is a huge debate about what do we do with unaccompanied
juveniles or minors who arrive, and that is an important debate to
have. But we ought to stop and think: Is there something that we are
doing that is encouraging that flow? Because, believe me, everything
that is coming out of this is bad. It disrupts the societies from which
these people are coming. We are treating children from Mexico different
than we are treating them from Guatemala. We have people now pouring
money into criminal cartels and strengthening them. And finally, the
children themselves, the juveniles themselves, are confronted with a
thousand-mile long journey where they are breaking not just the laws
here but also in Mexico. They are at great risk. They are traveling
with criminals. There is a lot of abuse. Some of them are undoubtedly
forced into sex trafficking and perhaps others to the drug trade. There
are plenty of opportunities for abuse. Nobody should want that to
happen.
We are going to try to offer some serious proposals. I am very
pleased with my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Kay Granger
from Texas, who has put together a working group and some very
thoughtful proposals. We have tried to scrub them on the Appropriations
Committee. Hopefully we will be able to address that issue.
Finally, let me just end with this. In closing, I believe it is
important, Mr. Speaker, to continue this deliberative approach towards
fundamental tax reform. The child tax credit has existed since 1997,
and the reforms contemplated in this legislation are important. In
addition, the consolidation of four separate education credits into one
simplified credit will result in much less taxpayer confusion.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 680 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 851.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend

[[Page H6774]]

the rule because the majority Member controlling the time
will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the
same result may be achieved by voting down the previous
question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous
question is defeated, control of the time passes to the
Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous
question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may
offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 442]

YEAS--226

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--191

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Bass
Beatty
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Carney
DesJarlais
Gingrey (GA)
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Honda
Jackson Lee
Kingston
Lewis
Nunnelee
Rogers (MI)

{time} 1501

Messrs. McNERNEY, GARCIA, and Ms. KUSTER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WOODALL and COFFMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately on July 24, 2014, I missed
rollcall vote No. 442 on Ordering the Previous Question. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 189, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 443]

YEAS--226

[[Page H6775]]

Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--189

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--17

Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Capito
DesJarlais
Edwards
Gingrey (GA)
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Honda
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Kingston
Lewis
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Rogers (MI)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1508

Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________