[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8157-H8167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H. CON. RES. 71, 
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 580

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 
     and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2019 through 2027, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget or her designee that the House concur 
     in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is budget day. I don't know if you were 
as excited about that when you got out of bed this morning as I was, 
but, to be fair, I sit on the Budget Committee.
  I have the great honor of serving on the Rules Committee, and that is 
why I have the great honor of bringing this rule to the floor today. 
But I serve on the Rules Committee by night. By day, I serve on the 
Budget Committee with my friend Mr. Pascrell and others, and we have 
been working since January to produce a budget for the United States of 
America.
  I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we produced a whale of a budget 
coming out of the House Rules Committee. You remember that budget, you 
supported that budget. We did a fantastic collaborative job bringing 
that budget to the floor, and then it went to the United States Senate.
  Now, you know how this happens, Mr. Speaker. We all grew up watching, 
``I am just a bill sitting here on Capitol Hill. Well, it is a long, 
long journey to the capital city, it is a long, long wait while I am 
sitting in committee.'' We all know the song from our childhood.
  It is a long process to move a bill through, and nine times out of 
ten, it comes back differently from the United States Senate than the 
way we sent it over there.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today by concurring with 
the Senate amendment, and if we pass this rule, that is what we will 
have an opportunity to do. If we pass this rule, we will have an 
opportunity to have the debate, concur in the Senate amendment, and 
bring a unified budget to the floor.
  Now, what does that mean, Mr. Speaker?
  We have already been working on appropriations bills this cycle, and 
for the uninitiated, that is the bulk of the Federal spending that goes 
on. All of the mandatory spending that you and I both know about, Mr. 
Speaker, Medicare, Social Security, those important income support 
programs on which so many Americans depend, that money is already going 
out the door.
  So today what we have an opportunity to do in passing this budget is 
to create what they call reconciliation instructions, because contained 
inside this unified budget of which the House and the Senate agree are 
reconciliation instructions that allow us to bring what I believe will 
be the most comprehensive, fundamental reform of our Tax Code since Tip 
O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did it in 1986.
  Since 1986, 4 decades ago, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today 
to do something that no other Congress has been able to do since I have 
been an adult, and I am excited about that opportunity.
  Now, to be fair, we are going to have a lot of disagreement about how 
to get that done. That is not the debate we are having today. For any 
of my colleagues or anybody back home, Mr. Speaker, who is worried that 
right here in this debate on a Wednesday, we are going to sort out our 
entire Tax Code, fear not, fear not. That is not the debate we are 
having today.
  The debate we are having today, Mr. Speaker, is will we or will we 
not take on the challenge of reforming our Tax Code. I believe that we 
will.
  The debate that we are going to have today is will we or will we not 
confront the fact that America has one of the least competitive tax 
codes in the world, but Americans deserve one of the most competitive 
tax codes in the world.
  The debate we are going to have today, Mr. Speaker, is not about the 
details of tax reform, but about the premise of can we do better for 
the American people or can we not.
  I have the great benefit, Mr. Speaker, of not having to learn what I 
know about this Chamber from watching it on TV or reading it in the 
headlines. I consider myself very blessed to have the opportunity to 
serve among these men and women. If I just had to read about them in 
the headlines, I would have a very low opinion of them. I confess, I 
would have a low opinion. But because I get to work with these men and 
women, Mr. Speaker, I get to see the real commitment to their 
constituencies, the real commitment to their home States, the real 
desire to deliver on behalf of their constituencies and on behalf of 
the United States of America.
  We may have a divisive debate today. We sometimes do. But my 
prediction here in hour one, Mr. Speaker, is that by the time we leave 
this floor, we are going to have an agreement to take on one of the 
challenges that no party has been able to take on since Democrats and 
Republicans came together in 1986 to get it done.
  It is my great hope that we will use that model, that we will repeat 
that model, that we will improve upon that model, and that we will 
produce something that all of our constituency can be proud of. I know 
that America is hungry for tax reform, and I believe we can deliver it 
for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, 
support the underlying concurrence in the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, my friend Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. Today, 
House Republicans are pushing a job-killing budget so they can use 
fast-track reconciliation procedures to steamroll through their 
billionaires-first tax plan.
  Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be the people's House. We ought to 
have the people's budget, a budget that helps the millions of Americans 
who sent us here to Congress, not a budget that helps only a few, the 
well-connected and the well-off.
  I disagree with Mr. Woodall. This is not a time to celebrate. This is 
a terrible budget. This budget will devastate America's investments in 
good

[[Page H8158]]

paying jobs, it threatens growing wages and the bedrock promise of 
a secure and healthy retirement. It makes cuts across the board that 
would hurt seniors, children, veterans, and the hardworking people 
across this country who are already struggling to get by.

  Why are Republicans doing this?
  Well, it is all in the name of fast-tracking the Ryan-McConnell tax 
plan, which explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and then provides 
multitrillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. We 
Democrats think this is a horrible idea.
  What is particularly astonishing is the blatant hypocrisy of 
Republican leaders pushing this deficit-busting budget. Republicans are 
always telling us how much they care about the deficit, but when it 
comes to giving their beloved tax cuts to their billionaire friends, 
they suddenly develop a convenient case of amnesia. They say: What 
deficit? Don't worry. These tax breaks will pay for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. In this Republican-controlled Congress, 
we can now say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer 
matter. All of the talk by Republicans, well, they didn't really mean 
it.
  If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way 
imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the 
floor. This kind of shows what they truly believe, where their values 
are, where their priorities are.
  How many times have Republicans talked about the importance of a 
balanced budget?
  The Speaker called for a deficit-neutral tax plan in his Better Way 
agenda. Well, I guess this debt-creating budget is the ``Somewhat Less 
Better Way'' plan.
  Your budget chair took to Twitter just 2 weeks ago to chastise Senate 
Republicans for not pursuing a balanced budget, yet now she is fully in 
support of their budget, which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with 
no way to pay for it.
  Now, let me spell this out for my Republican friends. This is not a 
balanced budget. Clearly, Republicans desperately need a refresher on 
basic arithmetic.
  Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing balanced about hitting 
middle class families and millions of hardworking Americans with cuts 
while giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts they simply do not 
need. Billionaires aren't knocking down our door asking for more tax 
breaks. This is disgusting. This is shameful.
  The Republican budget destroys middle class jobs by stealing hundreds 
of billions of dollars from investments in infrastructure, job 
training, advanced energy, and research and development. It devastates 
Medicare and Medicaid. It demands deep cuts to safety net programs like 
SNAP. I am talking about food for hungry children and hardworking 
families. It goes after college affordability. It makes college more 
expensive for working families. It undercuts key supports for veterans 
and their families.
  What is particularly offensive is that Republicans are using this 
terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the wealthy as 
quickly as possible regardless of the consequences and without 
bipartisan support.
  The tax reform framework supported by Republicans in Congress will 
raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy. Under 
the Republican plan, the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all 
tax benefits. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent would receive 80 
percent of all tax benefits. Give me a break.
  Those making more than $900,000 a year would receive an average tax 
cut of more than $200,000. Think about that. A person working full time 
in minimum wage makes $290 a week before taxes. And under this plan, 
people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year, would get a massive 
tax break. Corporations will receive a tax cut totaling $2 trillion.
  Who loses in this plan, Mr. Speaker?
  According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, one in three middle 
class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would actually 
receive a tax increase, and nearly half of middle class families with 
kids will see their taxes go up.
  Can you believe that: raising taxes on the middle class to pay for 
tax cuts for billionaires and corporations?
  This is insane.
  To make matters worse, Republicans are planning to steamroll their 
tax plan through Congress. We are reading in the press that we might 
see actual text of their plan next week and maybe a markup and floor 
consideration a week or two after that.
  Really? Don't you think we owe it to our constituents to have 
thoughtful, open debate on this legislation which will impact every 
single one of them?
  I guess not.
  Democrats agree that our tax system needs to be updated, to be more 
fair, and especially to be more fair to the middle class and to working 
families. We have always been willing to engage in real bipartisan tax 
reform, but the Republican tax framework is not tax reform. It is just 
one more GOP multitrillion-dollar giveaway to the wealthiest at the 
expense of the middle class and working Americans.
  In all my time in Congress, I have never seen a budget and a tax plan 
that harms so many just to benefit so few. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule, to vote against this cruel Republican budget, and to 
oppose a tax plan that puts wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent 
ahead of hardworking middle class families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to mention at the beginning that we 
might be debating the details of the tax reform plan that does not 
exist today. I see that we are, in fact, going to do that.
  There are a lot of studies out there on this tax reform plan that 
does not yet exist, but let me tell you that we can all agree that we 
have the single least-competitive Tax Code on the planet today. We can 
all agree that with the click of a mouse, a company can transfer its 
assets overseas and grow jobs there instead of growing jobs here.

  Let us have the debate that we want to have about who should bear the 
burden of American taxation. That is a legitimate debate and we should 
have it. But let us not have the debate about whether foreign workers 
should benefit or American workers should benefit from American 
capital, because that answer should be clear in the hearts and minds of 
every single Member of this Chamber.
  We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go from worst to first. Now, 
I confess that I don't actually expect to get all the way to first. I 
will settle for getting up in the top five and getting out of the 
bottom five when it comes to being able to lead in this country. But I 
want to mention, Mr. Speaker, what I think is a source of frustration 
of constituencies on both sides of the aisle, and that is the us-
against-them conversation that goes on day in and day out.
  I looked at the chart my friend from Massachusetts brought down to 
the House floor. It happened to be in university colors of Georgia's 
red and black, but I can see that as a representative of all the 
hardworking families in my district, that chart didn't do anything to 
inspire me about the impact of tax reform going forward.
  My friend quoted the Tax Policy Center. Now, The Wall Street Journal 
called the Tax Policy Center a shill for those groups that don't want 
to see any tax reform of any kind, but that is currently. The Tax 
Policy Center has been doing research for a long time. The research my 
friend from Massachusetts quoted was a study of a bill that does not 
yet exist. The research I am going to quote is of historical tax rates 
in this country.
  What my friends at the Tax Policy Center said is that about 30 
percent of Americans--one-third of Americans--pay no income taxes 
today; that the Tax Code, as it exists today, protects them from any 
tax liability at all.
  Now, what we are proposing when we get into fundamental tax reform, 
Mr. Speaker, is to double the standard deduction. For those families 
that are already claiming the standard deduction, we are talking about 
doubling it. Now, the brackets are still in question, the details are 
still in question, but we are talking about doubling the number of 
folks who don't have to deal with the IRS at all.
  Today, about 30 percent of American families don't pay any income 
taxes,

[[Page H8159]]

and that same 30 percent gets a refundable tax credit that rebates to 
them their entire Social Security and Medicare contribution that they 
make and the entire Social Security and welfare contribution that their 
employer makes on their behalf.
  Now, these are not my numbers; these are the Tax Policy Center's 
numbers, that a full third of Americans aren't paying one penny in 
Federal income tax or Federal payroll tax of any kind.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, I am not here to debate the wisdom of that, Mr. Speaker. I am 
here to tell you that I don't know how much lower I can cut taxes in 
that group. I don't know how in the world I can lower the tax burden on 
folks who are not only paying no income taxes, but are having all of 
their payroll taxes rebated to them also.
  Is this a group we should talk about, Mr. Speaker? Should we talk 
about folks who are grabbing onto the bottom rung of the economic 
ladder and struggling to climb to the top?
  We should, and we do.
  Should we talk about how it is that the entitlement system, the 
benefit system in this country, is trapping people at the bottom of the 
ladder and not allowing them to climb to the top?
  We should.
  I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be misleading to the 
American public to suggest that this tax bill is focusing its attention 
in one direction instead of another direction. The fact simply is that 
I can't lower taxes any more at the bottom of the spectrum.
  We are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. That doesn't 
inspire many people. I have that conversation regularly: Rob, what in 
the world are you doing lowering taxes on corporations?
  I support the FairTax, and in the spirit of folks who are not 
particularly enthusiastic about tax reform, I am not in that camp. I am 
enthusiastic about tax reform. I just thought there was a better way. I 
couldn't get the votes to have my better way done.
  My better way is the FairTax, and what I would say to you is 
corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes. They 
collect taxes from their consumers in the form of higher prices, from 
their employees in the form of lower wages, or from their shareholders 
in the form of lower capital--lower capital returns.
  Now, lest you think: Rob, you are just a conservative Republican from 
the Deep South. What do you know about this?
  I will again quote the Tax Policy Center, which says that a full 20 
percent of the corporate income tax burden falls on workers. Fair 
enough. If we want to argue about where the tax rates are going to end 
up and how the cuts are going to look and what the policies are going 
to be, let's have that debate.
  Let us not mislead the American people into believing there is a free 
lunch anywhere in this Tax Code. We have an opportunity to move from 
worst to first, and every single American, regardless of their region, 
regardless of their politics, is going to benefit from that change. 
They benefited from it when Democrats and Republicans came together to 
do it in 1986, and they will benefit from it when we come together and 
get it done today, as I believe that we will. We must.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, boy, I don't even know where to begin after that.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, made reference to the Tax 
Policy Center, and I have the report from the Tax Policy Center here. 
In fact, it is their analysis that was the basis for that chart that I 
held during my opening remarks, which said that the top 1 percent would 
receive 80 percent of the tax breaks based on the Republican framework.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record excerpts from the Tax Policy 
Center report.

  [From the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center 
                         Staff, Sept. 29, 2017]

            A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework


                                Abstract

       The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of 
     the potential impact of proposals included in the ``Unified 
     Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.'' We find they 
     would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years 
     and $3.2 trillion over the second decade (not including any 
     dynamic feedback). In 2018, all income groups would see their 
     average taxes fall, but some taxpayers in each group would 
     face tax increases. Those with the very highest incomes would 
     receive the biggest tax cuts. The tax cuts are smaller as a 
     percentage of income in 2027, and taxpayers in the 80th to 
     95th income percentiles would, on average, experience a tax 
     increase.
       The findings and conclusions contained within are those of 
     the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or 
     policies of the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution or 
     their funders.

  Alternative Ways of Presenting Change in Distribution of Tax Burdens


                   by expanded cash income percentile

       Expanded cash income percentile, Percent change in after-
     tax income, Share of total federal tax change (%), Average 
     federal tax change, Dollars, Percent, Share of federal taxes, 
     Change (% points), Under the proposal (%).
       Panel A: 2018.
       Lowest quintile, 0.5, 1.1, -60, -10.4, 0.0, 0.9; Second 
     quintile, 0.9, 4.1, -290, -9.3, 0.0, 3.8; Middle quintile, 
     1.2, 8.2, -660, -7.2, 0.2, 10.1; Fourth quintile, 1.2, 11.6, 
     -1,110, -5.5, 0.6, 18.7; Top quintile, 3.3, 74.5, -8,470, 
     -9.6, -0.7, 66.5; All, 2.1, 100.0, -1,570, -8.6, 0.0, 100.0.
       Addendum.
       80-90, 0.8, 5.1, -1,140, -3.1, 0.9, 15.1; 90-95, 0.7, 3.3, 
     -1,500, -2.6, 0.7, 11.4; 95-99, 2.3, 12.8, -7,620, -6.9, 0.3, 
     16.4; Top 1 percent, 8.5, 53.3, -129,030, -17.6, -2.6, 23.5; 
     Top 0.1 percent, 10.2, 30.3, -722,510, -20.4, -1.7, 11.1.
       Panel B: 2027.
       Lowest quintile, 0.2, 0.8, -50, -5.4, 0.0, 1.0; Second 
     quintile, 0.5, 3.0, -230, -5.0, 0.1, 4.1; Middle quintile, 
     0.5, 4.9, -420, -3.4, 0.4, 10.2; Fourth quintile, 0.4, 4.3, 
     -450, -1.7, 0.9, 17.3; Top quintile, 3.0, 86.6, -10,610, 
     -8.5, -1.3, 67.4; All, 1.7, 100.0, -1,690, -6.7, 0.0, 100.0.
       Addendum.
       80-90, -0.4, -3.5, 820, 1.8, 1.2, 14.4; 90-95, -0.3, -1.5, 
     760, 1.1, 0.8, 10.3; 95-99, 1.8, 11.9, -7,640, -5.3, 0.2, 
     15.4; Top 1 percent, 8.7, 79.7, -207,060, -17.4, -3.5, 27.2; 
     Top 0.1 percent, 9.7, 39.6, -1,022,120, -19.0, -1.8, 12.2.
       Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation 
     Model (version 0217-1)
       The full report can be found at: http://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/
 144971/a preliminary analysis of the unified framework 0.pdf

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, where did I get this figure about adding 
to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? Did I just make that up?
  I will tell the gentleman where I got it from. It is basically the 
Republican report in the Senate on the budget. Let me read from their 
report here.
  It says: ``This title includes two reconciliation instructions to the 
Senate committees. The first would allow the Finance Committee to 
reduce revenues and change outlays to increase the deficit by not more 
than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.''
  These are the words of Republicans in the Senate.
  The gentleman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan. It 
is because we are presented here with a budget that essentially fast 
tracks a tax plan. He is right, we don't have all the details yet 
because it is being negotiated and written in some back room somewhere 
in this building. I wish I knew where it was so we could maybe try to 
find out some more details. But what we do know is the framework that 
the Republicans have put forward, and that is the basis for the 
analysis that economist after economist have stated that this budget 
basically is a giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country, 
and it is not somehow a break for the middle class. It is the exact 
opposite.
  This is a gift for billionaires and millionaires, and it does nothing 
for working families. That is why this is all relevant. This budget 
puts in place procedures for the Republicans to fast track a tax bill 
that they are now writing in some back room somewhere that nobody will 
see probably until the last minute, and basically it will be rushed 
through here, and it is a big giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in 
this country. I just wanted to clarify that for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that Republican plans for tax reform would 
also eliminate the State and local tax deduction, called SALT. This 
deduction prevents millions of middle class families from being taxed 
twice on the same income by deducting already-paid State and local 
taxes from their Federal income tax.
  Half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle class families 
earning a household income of less than $100,000, and local communities 
will also feel that pain.

[[Page H8160]]

  Repealing the SALT deduction, which would effectively make State and 
local taxes more costly for taxpayers, would put pressure on local 
governments to lower taxes.
  The bipartisan National Governors Association said in a September 22 
letter that the SALT deduction, ``has contributed to the stability of 
State revenues that are essential for providing public services.'' 
These services include healthcare, police and fire departments, and 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the National 
Governors Association.

                               National Governors Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2017.
     Re Tax Reform (State and Local Tax Deduction and Municipal 
         Bonds).

     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways & Means, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, 
     Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Hatch, Ranking 
     Member Wyden, Chairman Brady, and Ranking Member Neal: The 
     nation's governors appreciate congressional efforts to reform 
     and improve federal tax policy. Federal and state tax systems 
     are complex and often interconnected. Therefore, as Congress 
     considers reforms, we urge you to maintain the balance 
     between state and federal tax systems by preserving the 
     income exclusion for municipal bond interest and the 
     deductibility for state and local taxes.
       The financing engine that drives U.S. infrastructure is the 
     $3.8 trillion municipal bond market. Changes to federal laws 
     and regulations should not increase issuance costs to states 
     for municipal bonds or diminish investor demand for them. If 
     federal changes make issuing municipal bonds cost-prohibitive 
     for states and local governments, then fewer projects could 
     be funded, taxes could rise, fewer jobs created, and economic 
     growth will suffer.
       Governors also believe that no federal law or regulation 
     should preempt, limit, or interfere with the sovereign rights 
     of states. A mark of sovereignty includes the ability to 
     develop and operate revenue and tax systems. Deductibility of 
     state and local taxes has contributed to the stability of 
     state revenues that are essential for providing public 
     services. We encourage you to avoid changes to the tax code 
     that would undermine the ability of state and local 
     governments to meet the needs of the citizens whom we all 
     serve.
       Eliminating state and local tax deductibility, moreover, 
     exposes a higher share of an itemizing taxpayer's income to 
     federal taxation because it adds back mandatory payments of 
     state and local taxes already paid, as taxable income.
       Federal tax reform requires an intergovernmental 
     partnership because decisions at the federal level will 
     affect state and local governments profoundly. We look 
     forward to working with Congress on bipartisan tax reform to 
     maintain balance between our systems and modernize the 
     federal tax system to meet the needs of our citizens.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Brian Sandoval,
       NGA Chair.
     Gov. Steve Bullock,
       NGA Vice Chair.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Members to vote to defeat 
the previous question; and if we do, I will offer an amendment proposed 
by Representative Schneider that would prohibit any legislation from 
limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal and to discuss 
the importance of the State and local tax deduction, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been outspoken 
on this issue on behalf of States and communities and middle class 
taxpayers.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there are some real terrible parts to this 
budget, but this, to me, is the worst.
  This deduction has been part of our tax system before there was an 
income tax, going back to the Civil War, for the very reasons that my 
friend from Massachusetts just talked about. It wasn't just picked off 
the shelf. People count on it. People count on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, 
the previous question, the budget, the weather, whatever.
  We know that this budget resolution paves the way for a tax reform 
bill done through reconciliation. I am sure that is interesting. 
Reconciliation on Governor Street in Paterson, New Jersey. I am sure 
they want to know reconciliation when we are talking about their 
pocketbooks; a dubious maneuver that blocks us Democrats completely out 
of the process and allows Republicans to pass a purely partisan, 
juiced-up bill.
  Comprehensive tax reform is a goal we should all share, and lasting 
tax reform should be bipartisan. My friend from Georgia, I think, 
believes that, but this ain't it.
  While they are cutting deals behind closed doors, what we are pushing 
is eliminating the State and local tax deduction, and that is in the 
Senate budget. They wrote it right out, the Capito amendment.
  Republicans are so adamant about eliminating this middle class 
benefit that they added an amendment to that budget before us today, 
the so-called Capito amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A vote for this rule is a vote for the 
budget, is a vote to repeal the State and local deduction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues representing New Jersey, New 
York, Illinois, California, Minnesota, and so many other States, 
including Georgia, including Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, better think long 
and hard about their vote today.
  The American people are watching to see if they vote to raise their 
taxes. This amendment, the Capito amendment, in the budget falsely 
claims that the SALT only benefits high-income taxpayers. Let's take a 
look at that.
  The fact is that repealing it would hurt the middle class and working 
families. At the same time, how do you justify--through the Speaker, 
how do you justify keeping the deduction still viable for corporations? 
They can deduct the State and local taxes, but the families of America 
can't? How can you justify that?
  I want to hear your justification of that. That is going to be a good 
one.
  Forty percent of taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, 
more than 70 percent of those making $100,000 to $200,000, claim the 
State and local tax deduction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I will make it short, but I could stay 
here all afternoon on this because I feel it in my bone marrow.
  We are talking about tax cuts. We are increasing the tax burden on 
the middle class, and you cannot deny it. There is no place in that 
budget that you can deny it. None whatsoever. You could say: Well, we 
are going to do this over here and this.
  Look, I am tired of that walnut trick. Okay? Have you figured out 
which it is under?
  Groups representing realtors, mayors, teachers, firefighters, 
sheriffs, et cetera, all support retaining the State and local tax 
deduction. It is bad policy, plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you, we have enough ammunition. We don't 
need this ammunition for next year. Let's think about the budget of the 
American people in a nonpartisan way.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have wondered what kind of passion we have on the 
Budget Committee, I will just once again recognize how much I enjoy 
serving with my friend from New Jersey on

[[Page H8161]]

the Budget Committee. Everything you just heard from him was from the 
heart. I get to hear it in committee day in and day out, and I will 
tell you, we end up with a better product as a result of that. It is a 
legitimate debate to have about the State and local tax deduction. It 
is perfectly legitimate.
  There are those from low-tax jurisdictions that ask: Why would the 
Federal Government and the Federal taxpayer want to subsidize those 
States that are higher-tax jurisdictions? There are those jurisdictions 
that are low-tax jurisdictions.
  Because the gentleman's constituency in New Jersey makes so much 
money, they pay so much more in Federal income taxes. And States like 
mine in Georgia, States like Alabama, States like Mississippi are the 
beneficiary of those dollars as the Federal Government distributes 
them. Undeniably, there is a case to be made on both sides of this 
issue.

  The falsehood, Mr. Speaker, is to suggest that we are deciding that 
issue today. We are not. We are not.
  I don't blame any of my colleagues for fighting for their 
constituency at the height of their ability, at the highest vocal point 
of their capability, because issues are, at their core, local and 
personal to each and every one of us.
  We are going to have to have this conversation and we are going to 
have to sort it out, and I believe it is not going to be a partisan 
conversation. In fact, I know it is not going to be a partisan 
conversation.
  I know Republicans who share my friend from New Jersey's opinion, and 
I know Democrats who share Shelley Moore Capito's opinion on the Senate 
side. We know this to be true. We are going to sort this issue out, Mr. 
Speaker.
  What I fear, though, is that emotions are going to run so high that 
we are going to miss an opportunity to figure these things out. For 
example, to conflate personal deductions with business deductions is to 
create confusion where there needn't be any.
  Every business in America can deduct the meals that they serve 
throughout their day as a business expense. I will share with the 
gentleman that my family cannot deduct our meals from our income taxes.
  Every business out there that has rented an apartment somewhere in 
order to conduct business, they can deduct that rent from their income 
taxes as a business expense. I will share with my friend, in the great 
State of Georgia, I am unable to deduct my rent as a business expense 
from my income tax.
  There is just a fundamental difference between families and 
businesses, and that fundamental difference goes back to what I said at 
the very beginning, and that is there is only one taxpayer in this 
country. It is not Walmart, it is not Apple, it is not Microsoft. It is 
the American consumer. We are the only ones. At the end of the day, the 
buck stops with each and every American family.
  The debate over how to structure a corporate income Tax Code, Mr. 
Speaker, is perfectly legitimate. To suggest that the fact that the 
personal code and the business code look different and that is somehow 
nefarious is to deny what is just now over 100 years of income tax 
policy in this country.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. So, now that you have agreed to the fact the families 
are going to get shafted but corporations will continue to be able to 
deduct their local and State taxes, this is pertinent to the budget, my 
friend, through the Speaker.
  Right in the bill, the budget bill we are talking about right now, 
the rule, previous question, related to changes in Federal tax laws, 
which may include reducing the Federal deduction such as this--this is 
right from the budget. Why do you say we are not discussing this?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my friend, Mr. Speaker, what you 
hear is absolutely right. I want to make that clear. Everybody is 
entitled to their own opinion; they are not entitled to their own 
facts. The words my friend is reading are absolutely accurate. What 
they are not are absolutely binding. That is what they are not.
  What this is is such a personal and important issue to folks on both 
sides of it that it got its own personal line out of the United States 
Senate.
  I can't even get nominations out of the United States Senate, Mr. 
Speaker. I am sitting here trying to staff out region four down in the 
great State of Georgia. Folks are delaying debate. Folks won't let me 
get my people in place.
  This is so important to the United States Senate that it came with 
its own line.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to diminish the importance of this issue on 
either side. What I do want to insist upon, though, is that it will not 
be decided during this hour today; and I want to insist, Mr. Speaker, 
that it will not be decided on partisan lines.
  I would just ask of you, Mr. Speaker, and of my friends here on the 
floor, we have two things we can do with our voices: we can either sow 
consensus, or we can sow discontent.
  I know that we are passionate about these things in which we believe, 
but to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to come together and 
sort it out and do the very best we can for Americans is to sell this 
institution short and is to further the misunderstanding, the 
misimpression, the misinformation that the media sends out about us 
every day. I know we are better than that, and I am proud to be a voice 
saying that here on the floor today, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to respond.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, families in my friend's State, the great 
State of Georgia, will lose a tax deduction of $9,000, those families, 
on average. I think you are concerned about that. You cannot fib that 
you are not.
  And the fact of the matter is you used the words--through the 
Speaker, you used the words that your States are subsidizing the donor 
States? Well, let me give you an idea of New Jersey.
  States like West Virginia, the average SALT deduction claim is $9,463 
per household; in Ohio, it is $10,445; in Wisconsin, it is $11,653.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, and 
this will probably have to be it because, unfortunately, we have so 
many speakers over here. I wish I could enjoy the loneliness that my 
colleague from Georgia enjoys that nobody wants to speak to defend this 
budget.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, 48th, 49th State, that is where New Jersey 
is in getting back the money we send down to Washington. Who subsidizes 
whom?
  And Mnuchin, go back and tell the Secretary of the Treasury he 
doesn't know what he is talking about. He says New Jersey is being 
subsidized? Not these numbers; the numbers don't show that.
  You can't defend this. You can't defend it under any circumstances 
whatsoever, and you have admitted that we are talking facts here today.
  I rest my case.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the underlying rule that would allow for consideration of 
the Senate-passed Republican Budget. If passed, this budget would allow 
Republicans to fast-track their tax plan through Congress without 
Democratic support.
  Now, I stand in support of a tax plan to help the middle class, but 
that is not the tax plan we are seeing proposed by Republicans. 
Instead, we see that 80 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 
1 percent in this country. The problem? Somebody has to pay for it, and 
it looks like it could be the middle class.
  I have heard from workers worried that cuts of contributions to their 
401(k) plans will ruin their retirement. I have heard from seniors 
worried that losing homeowners' incentives will make it harder for them 
to stay in their homes. And I have heard from families worried that a 
repeal of the State and local tax deduction will increase their tax 
burden.

[[Page H8162]]

  In fact, we know that one-third of the middle class will see their 
taxes increase under this plan. And the numbers show that, as our 
constituents begin to learn more, they are realizing that this plan 
only cuts taxes for the wealthy and corporate interests and leaves 
middle class families behind. That is why a Reuters poll released 
yesterday found that fewer than a third of Americans support the 
Republican tax plan at all.
  This tax plan for the rich will increase the deficit by $2.2 
trillion. And who will pay for it? Your children and their 
grandchildren. They will have to suffer from the cuts made down along 
the line to education, to Medicaid, to Medicare.
  And for what? To make the rich richer? To line the pockets of 
Washington special interests? That is not right.

  Reject this budget. Most importantly, reject this tax plan.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard a lot about the distributional analysis of tax reform, 
and, as I have suggested, it is hard to do. Folks who make a whole lot 
of money, like my friend from New Jersey's constituency, they pay a 
whole lot more in taxes. I hope that one day my constituency makes as 
much money as my friend from New Jersey's constituency, and if we can 
stimulate the economy the way that I believe that this tax proposal 
will, we are going to have a shot at getting that done.
  But we have to have these conversations about limiting tax deductions 
for the wealthiest Americans if we are going to solve the issues that 
my friends have raised. And reading right out of that Senate budget 
report, the whole purpose of considering the State and local tax 
deduction and considering modifying it, capping it, eliminating it, 
whatever you want to insert there, Mr. Speaker, is designed around 
limiting those tax deductions that only benefit the wealthiest among 
us--that only benefit the wealthiest among us. That is the conversation 
that folks are trying to have.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, there is so much more that we agree on than that 
we disagree on in this Chamber. But it appears, time and time again, we 
come to the House floor and focus, in the most shrill voices, on the 20 
percent of those things that divide us instead of the 80 percent of 
those things that we could come together and deliver on for our 
constituency.
  Tax reform doesn't have to pass with 51 votes in the Senate. We move 
reconciliation bills through the Senate with 60 votes. We have moved 
them through the Senate with 70 votes. We have moved them through the 
Senate with 80 votes.
  Growing the American economy, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense goal that 
is shared in every single region and in every single political quarter. 
Let's not make this about us here. Let's make this about our bosses 
back home. We can, and we should, and I believe that we will.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member on the Tax Policy Subcommittee 
of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly about one thing and one 
thing only. It is about lavishing tax breaks on Donald Trump 
personally, his family, and all of his billionaire buddies. It is about 
lavishing tax breaks and incentives on the very same giant 
multinational corporations that have shipped away so many American 
jobs, that have refused to pay their fair share of our national 
security by hiding their profits in offshore island tax havens.
  It is about doing all that and hoping that, at this time of the year, 
here at Halloween, that they can trick American middle-class families 
into believing that a little of those tax benefits will trickle down to 
them. Because if they can do that, if they can pass this bill, they 
will treat themselves, the billionaires, and the job exporters, to tax 
benefits of almost astronomical proportions.
  To suggest that there is anything bipartisan about this bill or 
anything bipartisan about the tax proposal that Republicans will unveil 
next week is truly a farce. There is no bipartisanship here.
  They learned nothing from their failed healthcare repeal efforts. No, 
they plan to use surprise, jack-in-the-box tactics to pop out a bill at 
the last minute, force it through this House, through our Ways and 
Means Committee, and foist it off on the American people.
  With Halloween coming, there is a simple ``trick or treat'' test that 
you, as an American family, can use. If you are in the top 1 percent, 
you get 80 percent of the individual benefits out of this bill.
  So just look at your income. If you are not up there in the $700,000 
or $900,000 range, don't count on getting much benefit out of this 
bill. In fact, a number of studies show your taxes may actually go up 
while others see a significant decline in the revenue the richest few 
are asked to pay to finance our country.
  And what about the idea of growing jobs? After all, growing our 
economy is what we should all be about and what is claimed for this 
bill. Well, I turned to that objective source, Goldman Sachs, the home 
of the Treasury Secretary and top economic advisers. Goldman Sachs, 
within the last month, has advised its own investors: Don't expect much 
out of this tax bill because any momentary growth at the beginning will 
be offset by the trillions of dollars of additional debt from the same 
people who have been telling us for years we can't afford another 
dollar for abused children, and we can't afford dollars for children's 
healthcare because we are so very worried about the national debt.
  Well, there is reason to be worried about the national debt and not 
to explode it by trillions of dollars with this giant unpaid tax bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. A zombie of supply-side economics is returning from the 
dead. We know it didn't work for President Bush. We know it didn't work 
in the Reagan era. They are bringing it back again, saying, if you just 
give a little more to those who have so much already, it will benefit 
everyone else. The data does not show that.
  This is a tax bill that needs to be rejected because it is so unfair 
and inequitable to the American people. This is much worse than the 
healthcare repeal because its ramifications in leading to cutting 
Medicare and Social Security will be far-reaching. There will not be a 
family in America that goes untouched.
  Reject this budget. Reject this awful tax bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to agree with some of what my friend had to say.
  There will be absolutely no family that goes untouched. If you would 
like to go to the Council of Economic Advisers web page, Mr. Speaker, 
you can see their most recent report, which suggests, on average, 
$4,000 in additional wages for every wage earner in this country, every 
family in this country, making a difference for economic growth.
  We all know that economic growth matters. More jobs mean more 
pressure on labor. More pressure on labor means higher wages. Higher 
wages mean more income for the Federal Government in taxes and more 
income for families to put into their pocket.
  We are hearing about zombies and surprises and tricks. You can tell 
that Halloween is right around the corner, and scaring folks is kind of 
the tagline of Halloween, Mr. Speaker; and, sadly, that is what we see 
going on here today.
  I promise you, you have not heard a single bipartisan word about this 
tax plan from my friends on the other side, so I am going to provide 
those words for my friends. I will read from yesterday's Wall Street 
Journal, Mr. Speaker: ``In 2012, President Obama and his advisers 
proposed lowering the corporate tax rate because it `creates good jobs 
and good wages for the middle class folks who work at those 
businesses.' ''

                              {time}  1315

  We can argue about what the tax reform ought to look like. What we 
can't argue about is the benefit for American families of tax reform.
  In 2013, Lawrence Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and

[[Page H8163]]

Chairman of President Obama's Economic Council, argued that the tax on 
corporate profit creates a burden without commensurate revenues for the 
government, and that changing it is as close to a free lunch for the 
American taxpayer as reformers will ever get. That was President 
Obama's Treasury Secretary.
  Again, we can argue about what it looks like. What we can't argue 
about is what it is intended to do and what leading experts believe it 
will do. In 2015, Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republican Rob Portman 
cosponsored a Senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which 
is the highest of the 35 countries in the OECD today.
  As Chuck Schumer says: ``Our international tax system creates 
incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas, rather than 
creating jobs and economic growth here in the United States.'' We can 
fix that together, and we will fix that together.
  Bill Clinton, in 2016, said he regretted raising the corporate tax 
rate to its current level for exactly those reasons.
  Who is advantaged by trying to persuade the American people that 
something nefarious is going on here? Who is advantaged by that? I 
don't know about my friend's constituencies, Mr. Speaker, but my 
constituency wants to believe we are making things work together. My 
constituency wants to believe in rolling up our sleeves and sorting 
things out together. My constituency wants to believe that we are 
united in making a difference for them together.
  We have this opportunity. If we pass this rule and we concur in the 
underlying Senate amendment, we will move forward on tax reform that 
will leave no American family behind.
  The best government program we have in this country is the program 
that allows jobs to develop so folks can have one. The best program we 
have in this country, Mr. Speaker, is one that allows wages to rise so 
that folks can earn more. My constituency is not looking for anything 
from the other side of the aisle except cooperation on freeing up the 
marketplace so that my constituency can go to work, so that folks can 
go and make their own pathway and future forward. We can do it in ways 
we haven't done together since 1986, Mr. Speaker.
  Who is advantaged by convincing folks that cooperation, consensus, 
making a different together is dead? I don't believe anyone. In fact, I 
would tell you that not just the debate but the body politic is damaged 
by those concerns, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will join together and refute those. I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia, we don't need 
lectures on cooperation and bipartisanship. We have offered to work 
with Republicans on tax reform. We have offered to work with 
Republicans on improving the Affordable Care Act. Every time the 
Republicans talk about rolling up their sleeves, we are not there. We 
are not invited.
  So if you want bipartisanship, open up this process. Go back to 
regular order. Hold hearings. Listen to our ideas. Don't write bills in 
the back room and rush them to the floor and force the Members up here 
to vote up or down on them. Yes, we want cooperation. We want 
bipartisanship, but we don't need any lectures from anybody on the 
other side of the aisle.
  This has been the most closed Congress in history. We don't need any 
lectures on the importance of cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I rise in 
opposition to the underlying budget--a budget which is really a budget 
buster that could be before the full House for consideration tomorrow.
  It calls for an additional $1.5 trillion worth of debt accumulated 
over the next 10 years. They call for that, I fear, in order to clear 
the path for unpaid-for tax cuts. There is a bipartisan path to move 
forward on tax reform. It has been 31 years since we have taken a 
serious run at the Federal code. It is long overdue. It is one that 
would simplify the code, that would broaden the base and lower the 
rates and make us more competitive at home, but especially abroad, in 
light of what the rest of the world has done.
  That can also help promote economic growth, but I fear that that is 
not the direction that the opposing party is taking with their tax 
reform proposal. I say fear because we haven't seen the details yet. So 
we can't say with certainty just what exactly will be offered over the 
next couple of weeks. But if history is any guide, there is a 
proclivity to pass large tax cuts that are not paid for.
  If history is a guide, we have been down this road before, in the 
1981 tax cuts, the 2001, the 2003, that promised to bring a boon of 
economic growth that would offset and pay for the lost revenue. It 
didn't materialize. Instead, we had huge budget deficits. 
Unfortunately, today, we don't have the luxury of time to help us 
recover from a huge fiscal mistake. Because today, 70 million baby 
boomers are beginning their massive retirement and joining Social 
Security and Medicare--10,000 a day.
  If we go down this route of going with massive tax breaks that aren't 
paid for, we are going to jeopardize the long-term solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare at exactly the wrong moment in our Nation's 
history. The folks back home tell me they would like to see tax reform 
along the lines that I just described, but they are not telling me that 
they are more interested in trickle-down economics where the 
predominant relief goes to the most wealthy, hoping that it somehow 
benefits everyone else.
  Now, they would like to see it a little fairer for working families, 
for small businesses, for family farmers so that they can share in the 
economic growth and the prosperity that could be offered if we do this 
the correct way in a bipartisan fashion.
  But instead, I fear that we are going to be witnessing history repeat 
itself. But unlike the time of the past, we don't have the luxury of 
time going forward without jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare, 
and without leaving a legacy of debt once again for our children and 
grandchildren to inherit.
  So let's regroup. Let's do a budget that makes sense for the long-
term fiscal solvency of important programs, but especially our 
children's future. This budget doesn't get us there.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject the rule and reject the 
budget if it comes up tomorrow.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I actually want to associate myself to my friend from Wisconsin's 
comments. I can't disagree with a word he said right up until it got to 
the end where he said to vote against the budget. Right up until there, 
we were on the same page.
  There is so much that we could do together. My friend spoke out on 
behalf of small businesses and family farmers. As the Tax Code exists 
today, when you see my friends put up charts about tax benefits going 
to the top 1 percent, they are talking about those small business and 
family farmers. They are talking about that small business in my 
district that has plowed every single penny back into the business--
back into the business for new technology to make their employees more 
productive, back into the business to open up a new facility, back into 
the business to add more distribution, because they have got 350 
families who depend on them to make that business successful so that 
those 350 families can put food on their table.
  But when the Tax Code is analyzed, Mr. Speaker, when the IRS sends 
back the statistics, that small business in my district that sends 
every single penny back into the business, they look rich. They look 
like they are the wealthiest, and they are not. They are those small 
family farmers. They are those small family businesses that are trying 
to make a difference.
  I want to say, because my friend from Wisconsin had a very 
significant concern about blowing holes in deficits, Mr. Speaker, as 
you know from your experience, one cannot pass tax reform that is 
permanent through reconciliation if it adds to deficits in the out 
years. That is what is so wonderful about this process, Mr. Speaker. I 
support what my friend from Wisconsin said about keeping an eye on 
deficits. I

[[Page H8164]]

support what my friend said about making sure Medicare and Social 
Security are growing, which they do when people go back to work and 
when folks earn more money.
  I don't want to be in the business of lecturing my colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker. I want to be in the business of working with my colleagues. 
But folks have a choice when they show up to work every day. Are we 
going to make this a day about arguing with one another? Are we going 
to tear something down today? Are we going to build something up today? 
I stand for building something today, Mr. Speaker. Unabashedly, let's 
build something together today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways 
and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly, my constituents in Texas would 
like to see the same spirit of togetherness that we have just heard 
about. How has that been handled in our Ways and Means Committee, and 
why do I call the claims of bipartisanship here a farce?
  Well, people in Texas would like to know: What is the effect of being 
taxed on our payment of property taxes? People in Michigan want to 
know: What is the effect of putting a cap on how much we can contribute 
to our retirement savings? Other people were concerned about adding 
$0.20 and a border adjustment tax to every purchase made from Mexico, 
or Canada, or elsewhere.
  Since May, I have been asking for hearings on these matters. I have 
been asking for one single Trump administration official to have the 
courage to come in front of our committee and answer questions about 
their proposal and the great gap between what President Trump says one 
day, and what they do the next.
  They have refused every day. We have been here all of September. We 
have been here all of October. They have refused to have a single 
hearing with a single Trump official because they plan to jam through--
while they yell ``kumbaya,'' they plan to jam through a gift to the 
superrich and the multinationals that keep shipping these jobs 
offshore. And they don't want any accountability for it.
  They don't want any public involvement either. They want the public 
to know as little about the details of their sham as possible. That is 
why they will have it introduced next week, passed in committee the 
following week, forced onto this floor and into the Senate, and the 
American people have to understand and speak up and say ``no.''
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say I don't 
want to sneak anything past anybody. I want to claim full and total 
credit for what we are about to do together. I don't want anybody to be 
confused about whose fault it is. It is my fault.
  When we get tax reform and get this economy growing again, blame me. 
When we can see wages rising in this country again, blame me. When we 
have an opportunity to go from worst to first in the international 
business community, blame me.
  I don't want anybody to believe there is anybody hiding here, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I share with my friend from Massachusetts that I do not have any 
speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close when he is. Truth needs 
no defense, I would say to my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically 
pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires. 
Again, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned the nonpartisan Tax Policy 
Center in his opening remarks, and this chart is based on their 
analysis. Basically, let me repeat, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of 
all the benefits.
  If you think that that is fair, if you think that that is 
representing your constituents, then go ahead and vote for this budget, 
because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this.
  I don't think it is fair. I don't think anybody on the Democratic 
side of the aisle thinks it is fair, and I am hoping that there are 
some on the Republican side of the aisle who think that that is not 
fair as well.
  The gentleman from Georgia talks about cooperation and about we need 
to get along. I mean, who disagrees with that? But actions speak louder 
than words. You can't talk about open, transparent processes and then, 
as we just heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), have the 
Ways and Means Committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed 
doors without any help from the Democrats, but having no hearings--not 
allowing any administration official to come up and testify.
  How is that an open and transparent process? How does that encourage 
the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? I mean, I thought my 
friends would have learned from their terrible experience with their 
repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act what happens when you 
write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without even 
the committees of jurisdiction, by the way, in that case, deliberating 
on what the final product should be.
  I thought you would have learned from that process, and you ended up 
failing at the end of the day. I hope that this effort that my 
Republican friends are now undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people 
in this country, I hope that that fails as well.
  A lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. My friends on the 
other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. In 
the Rules Committee, almost virtually everything is closed. Everything 
is shut down. Germane amendments routinely deny the ability for Members 
to offer them on the House floor because the Republicans don't want to 
deal with them. They are afraid they might lose. They don't want to 
have the debate.
  If you want cooperation, if you want a bipartisan tax reform bill, 
then you just can't say it; you have to do something. In 1986, the last 
time Congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full 
committee hearings spanning over a year. There were 26 days of markup 
between September and December. This time, the timelines being reported 
in the press are maybe just a week, or a little bit more, if that.

                              {time}  1330

  Again, if recent history is any indication, we might not even get 
that. A bill might just miraculously appear one day and be rushed to 
the floor so that no one has time to read it or analyze it and so that 
none of our constituents have time to understand what is really 
happening here.
  So I go back to that chart. One percent--1 percent--of the wealthiest 
interests in this country get 80 percent of the tax breaks.
  If you think that that is fair, then vote for this budget, because 
this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward.
  If you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits 
and debt, please vote ``no'' on this budget, because this allows us to 
increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion.
  Whatever happened to deficits matter? I guess it is inconvenient 
because tax cuts for billionaires matter more than deficits and passing 
on that debt to our kids.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to 
vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on this budget, and to fight 
like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the 
Republican side are pushing. This is bad policy. This is bad for our 
country. This is bad for middle class families. This is bad for not 
only my constituents, I would argue it is bad for your constituents.
  It is about time that the people's House starts enacting legislation 
that benefits the people of this country, not just a few who are well 
off and well connected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wish I could bring school groups down here 
onto the House floor just to help the next generation understand why we 
face some of the challenges that we face. We are down here today 
confronted with a tax bill that folks are certain is going to give away 
everything to everybody whom they don't want it to go to, and we are 
down here confronted with the fact that there is

[[Page H8165]]

no tax bill whatsoever to look at and it is going to get sprung on 
folks with absolutely no notice and no ability to read it.
  Now, either one of those things could be true. It happens to be that 
neither of those things is true. But how in the world do folks 
listening to this debate think that we are advancing the cause of 
reform?
  Deficits do matter, to my friend's point. They do matter, and the 
stranglehold that the Obama regulatory economy created here in America 
on economic growth reduced economic GDP growth by a full one-third--by 
a full one-third.
  For every 0.1 percent of GDP growth, we talk about 200 billion 
additional dollars coming in to the Treasury over the 10-year window. 
So a full percentage point that we have lost is $2 trillion coming in 
to the Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, if we had Bush-era growth instead of Obama-era growth 
over these last 5 years, the budget would be balanced today. But we are 
where we are, and the question is: Can we do better tomorrow? We can.
  Now, before I talk about that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some 
of the folks who helped to get us here. My friend from Massachusetts 
and I come down here and carry the debate, but the work goes on behind 
every single one of these doors and in every single one of these 
committee rooms.
  I serve on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and our staff director 
over there, Rick May, has done an amazing job shepherding this process, 
standing up for the House's work product.
  Jenna Spealman, Andy Morton, Tim Flynn, Robert Cogan, Patrick Louis 
Knudsen, Jim Bates, Mary Popadiuk, Jonathan Romito, and Elise Anderson 
are all working day and night--and weekends, many times--to get this 
product to the floor.
  Steve Gonzalez, Eric Davis, Robert Yeakel, Ellen Johnson, Emily Goff, 
Brad Watson, Brittany Madni, and Steve Waskiewicz are folks, Mr. 
Speaker, who don't come here because they have political passion; they 
come here because they have policy passion. They want to do those 
things that matter. They could go anywhere they want to in town and 
make more money, but they stay here working for the American people 
because they believe they can make a difference, and they are right.
  Mr. Speaker, they are right. They can make a difference. We can make 
a difference. This rule--this rule--if we pass it today, Mr. Speaker, 
will allow us to concur in the Senate amendment. Concurring in the 
Senate amendment does not bind us to the Senate process, but it enables 
us to move a bill that direction that they can process.
  We have seen the holdups in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I am not happy 
about that. That is just the way Senate process is. We can do better. 
Reconciliation allows us to do better, and passing this rule enables us 
to do better.
  Vote ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, and vote 
``yes'' on the underlying budget and open yourself up to doing together 
what has not been done together in 31 years. I don't just believe we 
can, I believe that we will. I am excited about it, I am proud of it, 
and I am ready to get to it, Mr. Speaker.
  Vote ``yes.''
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
rise in strong opposition to Rule governing debate on the Senate 
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for 
Fiscal Year 2018, and the underlying resolution.
  Let us be very clear and direct: the resolution before us is not 
intended to reconcile tax and spending priorities to reflect the 
priorities of the American people or to reduce the deficit and national 
debt or to put our fiscal house on a sustainable path to economic 
growth.
  Rather the sole purpose of Republicans bringing this job-killing 
budget to the floor today is to fast-track their ``Billionaires First'' 
tax plan, which will cause significant harm to working and middle class 
families, especially to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional 
District of Texas.
  The McConnell-Ryan tax plan, which this budget resolution is designed 
to grease the skids for, would raise taxes on about 1.5 million Texas 
households, or 12.4 percent of households next year.
  On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 
increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families 
struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.
  An estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state and local 
taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.
  The McConnell-Ryan plan eliminates this deduction, which would lower 
home values and put pressure on states and towns to collect revenues 
they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.
  The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions 
of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and 
claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions 
were claimed in the Lone Star State.
  Equally terrible is that the McConnell-Ryan tax plan drastically 
reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 
million low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet 
with an average credit of $2,689.
  The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, 
including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.
  This reckless and irresponsible GOP tax plan is made all the more 
obscene by the fact that 80 percent of the GOP's tax cuts go to the 
wealthiest 1 percent.
  To achieve this goal of giving more and more to the haves and the 
``have mores,'' the GOP budget betrays seniors, children, the most 
vulnerable, and needy, and working and middle-class families.
  For example, the Republican budget steals hundreds of billions of 
dollars from critical job-creating investments in infrastructure, job 
training, clean energy and research and development.
  It devastates Medicare and Medicaid by cutting $500 billion from 
Medicare and $1.3 trillion from Medicaid, hurting veterans, seniors 
with long-term care needs, children and rural communities.
  The GOP budget's steep cuts in program investments fall most heavily 
on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, 
and persons with disabilities.
  This Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage 
because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of 
healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, 
and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.8 
trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.
  This Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for 
replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the 
purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto 
seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to 
Medicare over ten years.
  Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it 
is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.
  The values expressed by this Republican budget are not the values of 
my constituents, the people of Texas, or the American people as a 
whole.
  For these reasons, I oppose the Rule and the underlying budget 
resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 580 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
     to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for 
     the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting 
     forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 
     through 2027, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget or her designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment with the amendment specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows: At the end of the Senate amendment, add the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES 
                   TAXES ON MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING 
                   OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, 
     or conference report that repeals or limits the State and 
     Local Tax Deduction (26 U.S.C. 164).
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).

[[Page H8166]]

       (c) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect to the rule or order, 
     as applicable. The question of consideration shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point 
     of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall 
     otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one 
     that the House adjourn.''
                                  ____


        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 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. WOODALL. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 188, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 582]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Amodei
     Bishop (UT)
     Bridenstine
     Espaillat
     Garrett
     Gutierrez
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Richmond
     Rooney, Francis
     Smith (NE)
     Thompson (CA)
     Webster (FL)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1357

  Mr. MESSER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H8167]]

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bridenstine
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Richmond
     Schrader
     Smith (NE)
     Thompson (CA)
     Webster (FL)
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1405

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________