[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 187 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9269-H9280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT, AND 
  PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 17, 2017, 
                       THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2017

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 619

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1) to 
     provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-39 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions. Clause 5(b) of rule 
     XXI shall not apply to the bill or amendments thereto.
       Sec. 2.  Upon passage of H.R. 1, the amendment to the title 
     of such bill recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means 
     now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 17, 2017, through November 27, 2017--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
my dear friend, 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.

[[Page H9270]]

  


                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I would 
offer my thanks and collegial admiration and respect to the members of 
the Rules Committee who, last night, once again, on an expedited basis, 
spent time devoted to the duty that they have not only to their party, 
but also to the House of Representatives acting on behalf of the 
American people.
  The gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings; the 
gentleman, Mr. Polis; and certainly our friend from Worcester, 
Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, conducted themselves not 
only in the highest of spirit, but they also produced what I believe 
was a fair argument, a product that they could be proud of. Each of the 
witnesses that came before us, including Democratic Members of Congress 
and Republican Members of Congress, provided, I believe, top-notch 
testimony and information on behalf of their ideas.
  I personally want to thank Judge Hastings for his time last night, 
which was late into the night, and today. My admiration and respect for 
his collegial activity is to be respected and appreciated.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1, the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act.
  Last November, the November which was 1 year ago, the American people 
spoke, and they spoke clearly. I believe they stood up and demanded 
change and action on our economy. They demanded an increase in 
understanding about America's lack in GDP growth, and they saw all 
across the country companies that continue to move overseas. They saw 
movement in our economy where people moved from one State to another 
seeking better opportunities.
  I believe that the American people have spoken. We not only heard 
that, but we are trying to make decisions now that would not only help 
every single area of the country by picking those businesses that might 
be in the city, in the town and location that they want to be, but by 
infusing them with the opportunity to stay, to stay because they can 
not only make a go of it, but they can be competitive in the world 
market.
  Lowering tax rates in this country will help the middle class of this 
country. It will help jobs and job creation. That is why we are here 
today. We are here today as a Republican Party where we are trying to 
work with the President of the United States, the United States Senate, 
and the House of Representatives to speak clearly about not only what 
we stand for, but our hopes and dreams for a better opportunity for all 
Americans tomorrow and in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers on those promises 
that I just spoke of. This is a bold, progrowth bill that will overhaul 
our Tax Code and unleash the free enterprise system not just in my home 
State of Texas or in my city of Dallas, but, really, everywhere where 
business wants to be, it can flourish in an unfettered way because we 
are now going to be competitive. It lowers tax rates on all businesses 
of all sizes so job creators can focus on not only their product and 
sales, but they can hire more people, increasing paychecks and growth.
  Growth actually is the key to what we are talking about today. 
Economic growth brings abundant opportunity: opportunity for people not 
only to have a job, but to have a career, control their own lives and 
make sure they can live where they want to live and so they can make 
their community stronger. That is this Republican viewpoint of what we 
are trying to get at, Mr. Speaker.
  With the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, 
today's broken Tax Code here in America forces many businesses to move 
their jobs, research, and headquarters overseas seeking opportunities 
in a world environment of competition where they can survive and they 
can become more competitive. A corporate tax rate of 20 percent 
encourages American companies to bring their jobs back to the United 
States, opening up opportunity. This decrease is fundamental to making 
the United States more competitive once again.
  The number one reason why America is not competitive in the world is 
no longer because of energy costs; it is no longer because we have the 
highest priced employees, no, sir. It is because Uncle Sam, State, and 
local taxes make it noncompetitive, which creates a higher cost as we 
compete around the globe.
  This legislation will modernize the international Tax Code, also 
bringing back opportunities for American companies that want to bring 
their profits back home and encourage U.S. businesses to bring foreign 
earnings home, unleashing what will be, over some period of time, 
trillions of dollars that can come back home.
  It reduces the tax burden on all passthrough businesses regardless of 
their structure or their sector. This legislation provides tax relief 
for job creators and creates capital investments, investments that will 
drive growth, once again, of paychecks and opportunities for growth. 
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a direct and immediate boost for middle-
income Americans who have been struggling to get by, let alone get 
ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, you will hear today how we are going to have a new tax 
bracket. All Americans until they, as individuals, earn $12,000 and two 
working people at home earning $24,000 worth of income will not pay tax 
on that. It is intended entirely to help the middle class of this 
country.
  H.R. 1 is about the entrepreneur, the family of four, the small-
business owner, and the American people. The United States is already 
the greatest place in the world to live. We are proud to be Americans. 
But we have to be competitive in the world marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the tax benefits in this legislation go 
directly to the middle class. The American people want and need, I 
believe, to learn not only more about this bill, but how it will 
incentivize them to Make America Great Again.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas, my good 
friend, yielded me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way 
to govern is through obfuscation, mathematical gimmicks, and a rushed 
and closed process, and all in an obvious attempt to hide from the 
American people the devastating consequences the Republican-led tax 
scam bill will have on working class and middle class Americans.
  Just so we are all crystal clear on this point: Who, under this tax 
bill, benefits on the backs of working and middle class Americans? Yes, 
folks, it is the wealthy corporations and the richest among us.
  The Republican majority has made lofty claims about their bill, 
saying that because of this legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, jobs 
will be plentiful, and that the economy will grow exponentially and 
astronomically. The White House has even said that the tax cuts would 
result in each household receiving an additional $5,000 to $9,000 in 
annual income.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems there isn't anything that Republican leadership 
won't say to get their own Members to vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, they can make all the claims they want, but the actual 
tax experts who have analyzed this bill paint a much darker picture 
about the consequences of this legislation. According to one 
nonpartisan tax analysis, today's Republican plan will result in a tax 
increase for 38 million middle class Americans.
  Not to worry, though. While these hardworking middle class families 
have to deal with the tax increase, the richest 0.2 percent of 
Americans will get a windfall. In fact, the estate provision in this 
bill alone would allow the heirs of just 11 ultrawealthy individuals to 
pocket up to $67.5 billion. An estimated 80 percent of the tax cuts in 
this legislation will go to wealthy corporations and the richest 1 
percent.

[[Page H9271]]

  Mr. Speaker, even more astonishing, a recent analysis by the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that this Republican 
tax bill could trigger automatic cuts to mandatory spending to the tune 
of $136 billion, including $25 billion in the Medicare cut.
  Let that sink in, because actually what is getting ready to happen 
here is we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and these deficit 
hawks on the other side are then going to turn right back around and 
say that we need to pay for these things. Then watch out Medicare, 
Social Security, and Medicaid, because that is the objective, in my 
view, in the first place.
  In order to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and corporations, my 
Republican colleagues are not only raising taxes on the middle class, 
but are now potentially triggering a $25 billion cut to Medicare.
  If this inequity were not staggering enough, Americans also have to 
keep in mind that today's Republican tax giveaway to corporate America 
and the ultrawealthy is not only on the backs of the middle class, but 
also future generations, as this bill will explode our national debt by 
an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Not surprisingly, Republicans are making the tired excuse that these 
cuts will pay for themselves. If they did, then we would have the 
easiest jobs in the world. Just cut taxes, and magically we will have 
even more revenue to pay for the important needs of our country. That 
sounds a lot like the old trickle-down-which-never-worked economics. It 
sounds that way to me, and we all know that as far as economic theories 
go, that one was and is a complete and total dud.
  Mr. Speaker, to summarize the majority's attempt to overhaul our Tax 
Code for the first time in 30 years: they raise taxes on middle class 
Americans, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and 
manage to explode the debt all at the same time--all this while also 
leading the most closed Congress in history and shutting out Members of 
Congress who represent nearly half of the American people.
  Hear that, America: a lot of your Representatives had no opportunity 
to say or do anything regarding the measure that we are discussing.
  Mr. Speaker, let us step back and really get a full view of how 
callous this bill is for our Nation by looking at how the bill treats 
middle class Americans versus its treatment of the ultrawealthy and 
corporate America.
  Under this Republican tax scam bill, a working class schoolteacher 
who buys supplies for his or her students would not be able to deduct 
that expense, but a corporation that buys supplies for itself would be 
able to use such a deduction.
  Under this Republican tax bill, a middle class homeowner would see 
their property tax deduction capped at $10,000, but a corporation would 
not face the same cap.
  Under this Republican tax bill, if a worker was forced to relocate 
for his or her job--footnote there, including the military--because the 
company moved or, in the case of the military, they were relocated, he 
or she would not be able to deduct that moving expense; but if a 
corporation decided to relocate, even to relocate overseas, it will be 
able to deduct its moving expense.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. But we shouldn't be surprised. As the 
old adage goes, bad process makes for bad policy.
  Not since the Republicans' failed attempt to strip healthcare away 
from millions of Americans have we seen a process that is this bad.
  Take, for example, the last time Congress passed major tax reform 
legislation in 1986 and what that process looked like. During that 
effort, the Ways and Means Committee held a month of public hearings 
and took testimony from over 450 witnesses.

                              {time}  1300

  The legislation before us now has had no--zero--public hearings and 
testimony from no--zero--expert witnesses.
  During the last tax reform overhaul, the Ways and Means Committee 
spent 26 days marking up the framework of the legislation. This time 
around, Republicans spent only 4 days marking up the legislation.
  The 1986 legislation framework was released a year before it was 
passed in the House. In contrast, the framework for this bill was 
released less than a month before they started today's process of 
jamming their final bill through the House. There were no hearings and 
no amendments made in order. From start to finish, there was less than 
a month of actual consideration.
  Much like the majority's rushed healthcare processes that produced an 
abysmal, destructive bill that would hurt working class Americans, this 
rushed process has produced a tax bill that benefits corporations and 
the wealthiest Americans, all while managing to raise taxes on the 
middle class and adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is lurching from one bad bill to 
the next with speed--not thoughtful policy--seemingly being the only 
goal. It begs the question: What is the rush?
  As a matter of fact, I don't even think we need a tax bill of this 
consequence. According to them, the economy is roaring, unemployment is 
low, interest rates are low. So what is wrong with certainly leaving 
the wealthy in the category that they are in?
  Why are my Republican colleagues setting an arbitrary deadline of 
passing a tax bill by Thanksgiving, instead of focusing on thoughtful 
policy and getting the substance right in a bipartisan fashion?
  Everyone agrees that we need to do something about the Tax Code. 
Democrats have been ready to work with Republicans on this effort, but 
have been shut out of the process at every turn. Why?
  The only logical conclusion is that this has nothing to do with 
policy and everything to do with politics. It has nothing to do with 
helping the middle class, but instead is a callous political maneuver 
aimed at salvaging a stalled and ever-failing Republican agenda.
  We are about to end the year with nothing having been done of 
consequence. Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. This conclusion is 
not based on my own opinion. Some of my Republican colleagues have 
admitted as much.
  When asked about the need to move on to tax reform quickly, one of my 
esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle was heard to say: 
``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me 
again.' ''
  Likewise, on the other side of the Capitol, one Republican has stated 
that, if the Republicans fail on tax reform, just as they did on 
healthcare, financial contributions will stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think politics should dictate our efforts to 
reform something as significant as the Tax Code. Our guiding light 
should be to help working folks get a leg up. The only way to do that 
is to work in a bipartisan, deliberate manner, hearing from experts and 
the American people, as they did in 1986, and not as my Republican 
friends have done this time around, spending a mere 3 weeks, with no 
hearings, no bipartisan efforts, simply to give us something done 
before Thanksgiving.
  That approach only gets you what we have here before us today: a bill 
that, in my opinion, does more harm than good to middle class Americans 
and puts our country further into debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observations. We don't have 
4\1/2\ years to work through the process that he talked about. The 
American people want and need something done right now.
  I say to the gentleman that he is right, the economy is roaring--and 
it has been roaring since the day Donald Trump won the election--with 
an expectation of performance.
  Why are we doing this now? Why at Thanksgiving? Why at the end of the 
year?
  We are going to see that American business, as it makes plans for the 
future, is going to look up and say: We have got a better shot at 
keeping jobs here. We have got a better shot at being competitive here.
  I think what is going to happen is you are going to see this boom, 
this big opportunity that is already well underway, to continue. But it 
is up to us to deliver that. It will be one party. It will be those 
pesky Republicans that will get it done. We are going to get it done, 
Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H9272]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee 
for yielding.
  Today, the House of Representatives is considering tax reform for the 
first time since 1986.
  In the last 31 years, the world has changed a lot and it is time that 
we bring the Tax Code into the 21st century. This needed tax reform 
will put our country on a path to long-term economic stability and help 
hardworking families around the country get ahead.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help American families in important 
ways. First, it focuses on Americans in the middle of the earning scale 
by doubling the standard deduction and creating a new family 
flexibility credit for nondependents. Taxpayers will be able to deduct 
even more from their taxable income, reducing the need for tedious 
itemization.
  In addition, the bill repeals the alternative minimum tax. This tax 
was never intended to be as broad as it has become, but because it was 
not indexed for inflation when it was introduced, many of us find 
ourselves having to calculate our taxes twice to see if we are ensnared 
by the alternative minimum tax. It is time for this one to go away.
  With decreased taxation, American families have more money in their 
pockets, resulting in greater contributions to the economy.

  The bill also alleviates some of the cost of raising children by 
expanding the child tax credit. It preserves the adoption tax credit so 
parents can continue to receive additional tax relief as they open 
their hearts and their homes to an adopted child.
  This bill reduces the number of tax brackets from seven to four, with 
rates of zero, 12, 25 and 35 percent for most taxpayers. It does 
preserve the 39.6 percent rate of the previous administration for the 
highest earners. These reforms will help simplify the Tax Code and make 
it more competitive for hardworking American families.
  I am grateful the Ways and Means Committee kept the step-up in basis, 
despite repealing the estate tax by 2024. The step-up in basis is an 
important component of estate planning when people are planning for 
future generations. This will allow people who may experience a tragedy 
to continue ownership of family property without bearing excessive 
penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of the flat tax. I have introduced H.R. 
1040 in every term that I have been in office, but I recognize this 
bill makes a lot of needed reforms and repeals some credits while 
maintaining those important to American taxpayers.
  Donors will still be able to make tax-exempt charitable 
contributions, employers will still be able to contribute to 401(k) 
retirement savings accounts, new homeowners will be able to deduct the 
interest expense on up to $500,000 of a mortgage, and no changes are 
made as to Social Security.
  I was actually hoping we could lower Social Security taxes. We 
couldn't. But we certainly do not increase Social Security taxes, 
despite what some of the fake news says.
  Students will continue receiving a credit through the consolidated 
American opportunity tax credit.
  Simply put, this bill will promote growth at middle-income levels, 
create a more favorable business environment, and continue important 
tax credits.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleagues: What do 
you have against students?
  This tax bill means that if an employer provides tuition assistance, 
the student is going to have to pay income tax on that. Students who 
borrow money for school have to pay interest on the loan. Students who 
want to get low interest rates are going to have to pay high interest 
rates because of the elimination of the private activity bond.
  The second question I have is this: What do you have against 
democracy?
  This bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on 
this bill. Nobody had a chance to have any input. That is why, if you 
ask 435 Members of Congress, if they want to raise taxes on students, 
the answer from 435 would be ``no.'' But you have rigged this bill so 
that we have literally no opportunity to offer a single amendment. That 
is wrong.
  This bill was written by and for the donor class. Let's defeat this 
bill and stand up for the middle class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Members are reminded to direct 
their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, my friend, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule as well as 
the underlying legislation, H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  This legislation demonstrates a commitment to my constituents and all 
of the American people to provide relief.
  Our current Tax Code contains over 70,000 pages of rules and 
provisions. Within these pages are hundreds of loopholes and carve-outs 
that only special interests can fully understand and access.
  At the very core of this legislation is a matter of fairness. By 
passing this rule and supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we will be 
making a profound reform of our Tax Code toward a system that is 
simpler, flatter, and fairer to American families across the country.
  According to analysis by the Tax Foundation, which is an independent, 
nonpartisan tax policy nonprofit, this legislation would stimulate GDP 
growth up to 4 percent and provide more than 3 percent of a wage 
increase.
  In my home State of Washington, it is projected that almost 22,000 
new jobs will be created and a middle class family in my State is 
projected to gain over $3,000 in after-tax income, should this bill be 
signed into law.
  This means real and significant economic growth, with tens of 
thousands of new jobs in my State alone, and more money staying in the 
pocket of central Washingtonians.

  Mr. Speaker, I have been disappointed in the dialogue surrounding 
this legislation from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The 
accusations that this will be a massive tax hike on the middle class 
are patently false.
  Unfortunately, these claims are being made by Federal officials right 
here in Washington, D.C., all the way to my State capital in Washington 
State.
  In my congressional district, over 80 percent of the people file 
their taxes using the standard deduction. This bill actually doubles 
the standard deduction for middle class families and for all Americans. 
This allows families I represent in Moses Lake, Omak, and Tri-Cities to 
save more money on their tax bill without having to jump through 
complicated loopholes and pore over their tax preparations for hours. 
However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to 
acknowledge that fact.
  This bill lowers individual tax rates for low- and middle-income 
Americans and continues to maintain the highest rate of 39.6 percent 
for the wealthiest of Americans. It eliminates special interest 
deductions, expands the child tax credit, establishes a new family 
credit for families taking care of a loved one, and it preserves the 
adoption tax credit.
  It allows a small business in Othello or a farmer in Yakima to 
immediately write off the full cost of new equipment. It repeals the 
unfair estate tax, which hurts family farms and small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people need relief, the people of central 
Washington need relief, and this bill provides it. I proudly rise in 
support of the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. He 
happens to be a Democrat, so he didn't have much input here. He is the 
distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax 
Policy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, only 1 minute?
  Well, one minute is longer than all of the hearings that have been 
held by

[[Page H9273]]

Republicans on this sham of a tax bill that is so very broad in impact 
and so shallow in analysis.
  Only one minute?
  That is more than all of the Trump Administration officials who did 
not have the courage to come and face our committee and be questioned 
about this lousy proposal.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, one minute? That is more time than all of the businesses 
in America and economists were given to explain the nature of these 
corporate giveaways.
  Why should a tax bill that is so broad get less time than it takes to 
microwave popcorn? Haste does make waste. This tax plan, born in the 
shadows and rammed through here 90-to-nothing will lay waste to family 
budgets, lay waste to affordable healthcare, and undermine our national 
debt.
  This tax scam must be rejected. They want it through here before the 
American people know what hit them, but if we speak out and remain firm 
in our resolve, we will defeat this sham of a bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a gentleman who participated for hours in the 
Rules Committee debate last night and is one of our most valuable young 
Members.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, those of us in Washington are really good at 
talking in big general statements that don't mean much to the average 
American. I want to tell you what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will 
actually do for the families I represent back in southwest Alabama.
  According to data from the IRS, almost three-fourths of the tax 
filers in my district claimed the standard deduction instead of 
itemizing. Well, under our plan, the standard deduction will be 
doubled.
  Just consider the medium family of four in southwest Alabama. That 
family earns a little over $77,000 a year. If that family takes the 
standard deduction, as most do, they will see a tax cut of $1,739 a 
year. That comes out to almost an extra $150 a month.
  Now, that may not sound like real money in Washington, but for 
families in Bay Minette or Citronelle or Monroeville, that is 
important. That is extra money for a car payment. That is additional 
savings for a child's college. That is money to help pay for home 
repairs. That is real money.
  When you add in the fact that we are fixing our corporate and 
business Tax Code to make it fairer and simpler, then we can truly make 
America boom again. President Trump has called it the ``middle class 
miracle.''
  By making our Tax Code more competitive, we can unleash our full 
economic potential, bring jobs back to America, raise wages, and 
ultimately get more money in the pockets of working Americans. Mr. 
Speaker, this is exactly what President Trump promised and what the 
American people sent him and us to Washington to do.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side like to say this bill helps the 
1 percent, and they vehemently defend the current Tax Code.
  You know who benefits from the current Tax Code? The 1 percent--
people who can hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them get a special 
tax break, people who can spend thousands of dollars a year on 
specialty accountants. If you want to help the 1 percent, then keep the 
current complicated and confusing Tax Code that only helps the elite 
and well connected. We can do better than that.
  We can pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we can put more money in 
people's pockets, and we can unlock America's full economic potential.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, I pointed out to my colleague from Alabama, 
whom I greatly admire, that he has a number of people claiming medical 
expense deductions who won't be able to do so under this tax measure. 
The number of them, in fact, is 22,052, and the total amount claimed 
under medical expense deduction by them previously was $186 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis), a distinguished colleague who I sit next to on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill. When I was growing up, I am sure, like most of us here 
in this body, I was fortunate to be surrounded by hardworking, 
dedicated teachers who cared about me, challenged me, and helped me 
succeed.
  Throughout our public schools in any State and across the country, 
there are teachers who are giving everything they have to help students 
thrive.
  Carolyn, a teacher from Louisville, is a great example. Carolyn 
shared with me how she spends her own personal money on school supplies 
for students who can't afford to buy their own. To help mitigate this 
cost, there is a Federal tax deduction that allows teachers to get back 
up to $250 of their personal money they put towards supplies in their 
classroom, but the bill before us denies Carolyn and all of the other 
teachers that deduction and eliminates the tax benefits in the name of 
cutting taxes for wealthy international corporations.
  This bill also rolls back a critical education tax benefit that 
allows employers to provide up to $5,250 of tuition assistance, pretax.
  In practice, it encourages workforce training and apprenticeship 
programs. In fact, this very week is National Apprenticeship Week, and 
yet the Republican tax bill pulls the rug out from under businesses and 
workers, actually discouraging apprenticeships by stopping this tax 
benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to serve, before I came here, as the 
chairman of our State Board of Education and school superintendent. I 
wanted to be the ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and 
Secondary Education Subcommittee. I have really seen how important 
these tax benefits are to teachers and students.
  I offered amendments last night in Rules to simply restore these 
important tax credits for children. Unfortunately, in a party-line 
vote, my amendments were denied.
  These damaging provisions are just a small part of the overall 
harmful, misguided attempt at tax reform. Let us reset and let us begin 
a bipartisan discussion about tax reform that values education, 
educators, and kids. For this reason and so many others, I oppose the 
rule and the underlying bill, and I suggest a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what a delight it is for me to stand up and say that, 
the work we are going to do today, the President of the United States 
will sign. He is encouraging what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the 
National Federation of Independent Business--that is ``The Voice of 
Small Business'' in America--and also what is called a Statement of 
Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President of the 
United States.

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of 
     H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This legislation will 
     provide much needed tax relief to America's job-creating 
     small businesses. H.R. 1 will be considered an NFIB Key Vote 
     for the 115th Congress.
       Small business is the engine of the economy, and tax reform 
     should provide substantial relief to all small businesses so 
     they can reinvest their money, grow, and create jobs. Ninety-
     nine percent of all American businesses are small businesses; 
     the average NFIB member has just 10 employees. Taken in sum, 
     however, small businesses create half of all private-sector 
     jobs in the U.S. and contribute half the nation's gross 
     domestic product.
       Three-quarters of small employers are structured as pass-
     through entities, meaning their owners are taxed at the 
     individual rate as opposed to the corporate rate. Crucially, 
     H.R. 1 reduces the tax rate on the smallest pass-through 
     businesses to 9 percent over five years, without industry 
     exclusions or restrictions.
       NFIB supports passage of H.R. 1 and will consider it an 
     NFIB Key Vote for the 115th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you to protect small business.
           Sincerely,


                                            Juanita D. Duggan,

                                            President & CEO, NFIB.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


   H.R. 1--Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--Rep. Brady, R-TX, and 24 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     1, the Tax Cuts and

[[Page H9274]]

     Jobs Act. Passing the bill is an important first step in 
     achieving comprehensive tax reform that cuts taxes for hard-
     working families and puts the Nation's economy on a path of 
     higher economic growth. The President's priorities for tax 
     reform have been consistent from day one: (1) cut taxes for 
     middle-income families; (2) simplify the Nation's complicated 
     tax system; and (3) reduce business taxes so that American 
     employers can create jobs, raise wages for their workers, and 
     better compete with foreign businesses.
       H.R. 1 would deliver meaningful tax cuts for middle-income 
     families by nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering 
     tax rates, increasing the child tax credit, and creating a 
     new Family Flexibility credit. It would simplify tax filing 
     so that the large majority of Americans could file their 
     taxes on a single page. The bill would also cut the corporate 
     tax rate to 20 percent--below the average tax rate in the 
     Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
     Finally, H.R. 1 would lower taxes for millions of S 
     corporations, sole proprietors, and partnerships that pay 
     taxes at individual rates.
       Based on a review of more than 100 academic papers, the 
     White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) estimates that 
     the corporate provisions in H.R. 1 would grow the economy by 
     between 3 and 5 percent over the next 10 years, which if 
     applied to 2027 Gross Domestic Product projections, would 
     result in an additional $700 billion to $1.2 trillion in 
     economic output per year. CEA also found that the same 
     provisions would increase average household income by at 
     least $4,000 annually.
       If H.R. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors 
     would recommend that he sign the bill into law.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the President's priorities and tax reforms 
are consistent and have been from day one.
  Tax cuts for middle class families, simplifying the Nation's 
complicated tax system, and reducing the burden of taxes so that 
American employers can create jobs, raise wages, and better compete 
with foreign businesses, that is what we are going to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is like old home week from the Rules 
Committee people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a good friend who used to serve on the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1. When I was 
home last weekend, my constituents shared how devastating this bill 
would be for them.
  A fifth grade teacher, Sarah, talked about how harmful the 
elimination of the deduction to purchase classroom supplies will be for 
teachers. She said:

       How out of touch do you have to be to cut a tax credit for 
     public school teachers?

  A senior citizen, Mark, spoke about how devastating the repeal of the 
medical expense deduction would be for him and his wife with 
Alzheimer's.
  How can House Republicans justify helping corporations over families 
in need?
  A father, Devin, who works two jobs to support his family, spoke 
about how he counts on the student loan interest deduction to plan for 
his future. He said:

       All I ask is that Congress keep the promise they made to 
     us. We planned based on the promises they made. I hope they 
     don't break that promise. I hope they don't make life a 
     little bit harder on our families.

  How can Republicans defend making the lives of middle class families 
like his more difficult?
  To make matters worse, this bill will explode the deficit and lead to 
devastating cuts to Medicare. I ask my Republican colleagues to think 
about the families that will be hurt by this bill instead of 
prioritizing handouts to billionaires and corporations.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a speaker, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is old home week here with 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor), another former member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
and thank him for being a champion for working families across the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the GOP tax 
bill because it is so fundamentally unfair. It is unfair that it raises 
taxes on tens of millions of middle class families while giving huge 
tax breaks to big corporations and the superrich. It does this, also, 
by adding over $1.5 trillion to the national debt.
  The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget said this is a step 
backwards for fiscal responsibility, largely because it passes the tab 
on to our kids and our grandkids. They estimate that that will cost 
about $12,000 per household, just the debt portion of it--not even a 
mention.
  Here is why middle class families get hurt:
  Republicans eliminate the deduction for medical expenses. That is 
over 630,000 Floridians in my home State.
  They eliminate the tax deduction that helps make college more 
affordable by being able to deduct the interest on your student loan.
  They eliminate all these deductions for the middle class and give all 
the breaks to the superrich and big corporations. It is fundamentally 
unfair, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
disastrous partisan tax plan that cuts rates for wealthy corporations 
and millionaires while leading to higher taxes for about 38 million 
working families.
  There is a lot to not like about this bill. It actually eliminates 
the student loan interest deduction. That will increase the financial 
burden for about 12 million Americans who are juggling their student 
loan debt with housing, groceries, and childcare. The cost of higher 
education is already out of reach for too many. We should be making it 
easier, not harder for Americans to access higher education.

  On top of that, removing the State and local tax deduction threatens 
funding sources for public education and will most certainly lead to 
cuts to America's public school budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, across the country, families are working hard to get 
ahead. Let's not take away their opportunity. We need a Tax Code that 
leads to better jobs, better wages, and a better future for America, 
for our children and our grandchildren. This bill fails the test, and 
we should reject it and get back to working together.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), who served in the Pennsylvania Legislature 
and was chair of appropriations. He really understands this stuff.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity.
  I am not on the Rules Committee or the Ways and Means Committee, but 
I am on the Agriculture Committee. I think it is extremely important to 
recognize what Feeding America has expressed about this package.
  Feeding America has concluded that H.R. 1 will undermine efforts to 
assist those who struggle with adequate access to food. I strongly 
oppose that in a day and age where there is so much poverty and so much 
hunger across this country.
  We need to face up to the fact that we should oppose this because it 
goes in the wrong direction.
  But let's be clear. The people who this bill will affect, too often, 
do not have a voice. I am here to be their voice. Enough is enough. 
This horrible bill needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a real champion and a mentor of 
mine.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, a picture is worth a thousand words, so is a 
graph. Following the blue line, the tax scam works this way:
  For average taxpayers, the blue line--the blue line is for blue and 
red States--shows taxes for individual taxpayers go down for one full 
year. Then look what begins to happen at 2019. They begin to go up. By 
2020, they continue. Follow the blue line for average

[[Page H9275]]

taxpayers. Their taxes are continuing to go up, they reach a real high, 
and steeply go up for the entire 10-year period. For business tax 
credits, they go down, too. That means business taxes go down. And then 
they, too, go up.
  So the scam shows both look like they are doing the same thing, but 
2024 is a dividing line. Then business income taxes plummet, but income 
taxes for average Americans go up.
  Who is paying for these business tax cuts? Individual taxpayers.
  Defeat this Republican tax scam.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, in strong opposition to this House 
Republican tax bill, which was developed in secret without a single 
public hearing.
  Despite repeated calls for Republicans to engage in a bipartisan 
process with Democrats, this bill was written without Democratic input 
and with enormous giveaways to wealthy interests.
  It makes you wonder, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker?
  To pay for them, Republicans have eliminated critical tax provisions 
that are important to the middle class--such as deductions to medical 
expenses, for State and local taxes, for student loan interest, and 
other expenses--on which middle class families rely. What Republicans 
can't pay for, they add to the Nation's credit card to the tune of $1.7 
trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are out to support this plan, but most Americans are 
only given the crumbs of this tax reform pie.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this bill. We 
need a fair and balanced tax reform package that helps everyday Rhode 
Islanders and that helps everyday Americans get ahead, not just the 
well-off and well-connected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a gentleman who serves on the Financial 
Services Committee and a distinguished young Member of our majority.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we are considering today is the culmination 
of years of work, years of listening to the concerns of hardworking 
taxpayers at home, and several elections where the people spoke out for 
relief from a broken, special-interest laden Tax Code.
  Here are the questions we need to be asking today:
  Are you tired of the status quo?
  Do you think we can do better than the slowest economic recovery 
since the Great Depression?
  Do you want a healthier economy that creates the opportunities that 
offer you a real chance to get ahead, puts more money in your pocket, 
and helps you fulfill your American Dream?
  If you answered yes to any of these questions, then the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act is for you.
  As I travel across my district, I hear story after story from 
families with nothing left over at the end of the month, who are 
struggling to save for retirement, pay off loans, or simply make ends 
meet.
  It doesn't have to be this way. There is a better way.
  We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix this. We can act 
now to put more money back into the hardworking taxpayers' pockets, 
make American business more competitive, and create a much healthier 
economy.
  Americans have toiled under a broken Tax Code filled with loopholes 
and special interest carve-outs for far too long. This legislation--the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--is a giant step for everyday Americans looking 
to get ahead.
  This is for the family of four, making $59,000 a year, who can save 
$1,182 a year in taxes. This is for the single mom, making $30,000 
working night and day to support her two children, who will also save 
more than $1,000 a year in taxes.
  Our legislation doubles the standard deduction, so people won't have 
to itemize their tax returns. It expands the child tax credit from 
$1,000 to $1,600 and provides a $300 credit for adult dependents living 
at home. It will create more jobs in Pennsylvania and raise 
Pennsylvania's families' incomes.
  It will bring dollars back to America to be invested in American 
companies with American workers. It will empower the people of America 
who want to get ahead, and it will lessen the power of Washington, D.C.
  Vote for freedom, vote for prosperity, vote for this rule and this 
bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
to the Republican tax scam.
  The biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people 
who play by the rules are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live 
on. Wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Too many families today 
struggle to make ends meet. They have the rising cost of healthcare, of 
child care, and of housing.

  Meanwhile, big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires write the 
rules to make government work for them--and Republicans are their 
comrades in arms in rigging the game against the middle class. Enough 
is enough.
  It cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans, raises taxes on the 
middle class, and it increases the deficit. And worse, it encourages 
companies who outsource American jobs. Congress must put middle class 
families and jobs before corporations that have not been loyal to their 
employees and to our country. When you outsource jobs, you drive wages 
down here at home.
  Let me mention the child tax credit to you. The Republican proposal 
leaves behind vulnerable families--military families, rural families, 
large families, minimum wage workers, and those with the youngest 
children.
  Do not let them get away with this scam. This is not reform. It is 
tax cuts for the wealthiest, and I oppose it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), from the Ways and Means Committee. At this 
time, we are putting the A-team up.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Sometimes, in order to understand what is going on in the present and 
then what could happen in the future, you need to go to the past.
  Let me read something from a true Irish-American President who said:
  ``Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and 
the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is 
increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as 
our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by 
restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our 
budget--just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. . 
. . ''
  `` . . . only full employment can balance the budget, and tax 
reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting 
taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more 
prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.''
  I understand that there are differences of opinion on what we are 
trying to do, but, please, let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about 
a piece of legislation that is a rising tide that will lift all boats.
  We are going to cut taxes for every American at every income level. 
We are going to reduce taxes by almost $1,200 for every average-sized, 
middle-income American family. This puts more money in the pockets of 
our families. I don't care how they vote or how they registered. They 
are Americans.
  It reduces by almost $2,000 for every average-sized, middle-income 
family in Pennsylvania's Third District. That is a $2,000 reduction for 
them.
  It will grow our national GDP by 3.6 percent.

[[Page H9276]]

  It will increase average American wages by 3.1 percent.
  In the long run, it will increase after-tax incomes for American 
taxpayers by 4.4 percent.
  I also want you to think about what we talk about back home where I 
am from. We talk about take-home pay. ``This is my take-home pay.'' In 
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians--Republican Pennsylvanians, Democrat 
Pennsylvanians, Independents, Libertarians--are going to have about 
$2,700 more in their pockets after this legislation goes through.
  Let's talk about jobs. Nobody spoke better about jobs than President 
Reagan when he said: It is about jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs. What 
is good for the American worker is good for America.
  This will create 1 million new American jobs.
  I want you to think about this: In the United States of America, we 
are now currently rated as the 23rd best country to do business in. The 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will change that. I want you to think about that.
  I am a hometown guy; I am a home team guy. It is hard for me to sit 
back and say that we have allowed ourselves to fall that far in the 
world when people think: Where should I start that business? Twenty-
third, are you kidding me? With all of the assets that we have been 
given by the Lord? And to sit here today and have an argument over 
something else other than that doesn't make any sense at all.
  What we are trying to do with our tax plan is make sure that the 
United States just doesn't participate in a global economy, it 
dominates a global economy, it leads the way in a global economy, it 
makes American workers stronger, it makes American families stronger, 
and it allows us to rebuild our military and our infrastructure. It 
allows everything good to happen.
  We cannot stay with the status quo. There is so much good in this 
bill for every single American. I did not say every single Republican, 
I said every single American. You can bat that one back and forth and 
try to make it a political story, but it is not. It is truly an 
American story. America has never dodged that responsibility.
  Now, let me read you one other quote, again, from an Irish-American 
President, who I hold in such great esteem, and one of the greatest 
people I have ever listened to. Let me read this to you. It says:
  ``I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face 
in enacting such legislation. No one will be satisfied. Everyone will 
have his own approach, his own bill, his own reductions. A high order 
of restraint and determination will be required if the `possible' is 
not to wait on the `perfect.' But a nation capable of marshaling these 
qualities in any dramatic threat to our security is surely capable, as 
a great free society, of meeting a slower and more complex threat to 
our economic vitality. This Nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can 
afford a temporary deficit, but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on 
the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We 
shall not fail that hope, for free men and free nations must prosper 
and they must prevail.''

  Think of who it is that we are. This is America's house. Yes, this is 
a GOP tax plan, but it helps every single American. It is not a blue 
plan or a red plan; it is a red, white, and blue plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I will challenge you to go home next week 
for Thanksgiving and tell people all of the positives about this, and 
say: I am so sorry. I could have voted for that.
  It is time now for America to rise to the challenge. As I said 
earlier, we exist in a global economy. I am tired of being somebody who 
happened to participate, when we have the opportunity to dominate. 
Never before, in our history, have we had the chance to change the 
future for every single American.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair, not to other Members.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I will go home this week and tell people I 
voted against this horrible bill. And I will wonder if the last speaker 
would go home and tell the 11,249 people who utilize $131 million in 
medical deductions who will not have that under this bill, 
understanding that it could be different if they chose.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Krishnamoorthi), a newfound friend and a rising star.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  This is a tax increase on the middle class, and it drops a ticking 
tax bomb on the American people. While it falsely claims to provide tax 
relief for working families and the middle class, in reality, it will 
raise taxes on 38 million Americans, and it will explode the deficit by 
over $1.5 trillion.

                              {time}  1345

  A typical family in my district in Illinois would see their taxes 
increase by over $1,100.
  According to the CBO, H.R. 1 is so irresponsible, that it will result 
in an immediate $25 billion cut to Medicare.
  Americans recognize that incomes are not keeping pace with the cost 
of living, and parents question whether their children will have the 
same opportunities they had.
  Our constituents need responsible tax reform that strengthens the 
middle class and raises wages for working families. They do not need a 
tax increase, and this bill does just that. It increases taxes on the 
middle class.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ticking tax bomb.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the 
gentleman has closed.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
am prepared to close and would advise the chairman of that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, a new Quinnipiac poll out yesterday shows the American 
people aren't falling for the Republican tax scam. Only 25 percent 
approve of this plan, just 16 percent think it will reduce their taxes, 
and only 24 percent said the Republican plan will help the middle class 
the most.
  Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the American people, throw this 
dangerous plan in the trash can, where it belongs, and let's work 
together on a bipartisan plan to help all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from limiting or 
repealing the State and local tax deduction, which prevents millions of 
families from being taxed twice on the same income.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. First, my Republican colleagues attempted to jam an 
abhorrent healthcare bill through Congress. They failed. After that 
failure, they moved on to today's attempt to jam an abhorrent tax bill 
through Congress. For the sake of middle and working class Americans, I 
hope my Republican friends ultimately meet defeat once again.
  Mr. Speaker, we set the record with this particular measure of 51 
closed rules in this session, the most closed rules in the history of 
Congress. What that means is a lot of the Representatives who had good 
ideas, more than 100 of them that offered amendments last night, were 
unable to be heard because of closed rules.
  After this closed, disgraceful process, this Republican majority has 
presented, in this instance, a piece of legislation that skews tax cuts 
in favor of the ultrawealthy and rich corporations.
  Now, let's make it very clear. Wealthy people shouldn't be 
disrespected for their wealth, but I don't know any wealthy people who 
are knocking down my doors, saying that they need a few more thousand 
dollars. But I know a lot of poor people who need a few hundred 
dollars, and this particular measure is not doing many of the things 
that would allow for them to be able to get on that last rung of that 
ladder and lift themselves up.
  I heard the gentleman say a rising tide lifts all boats. They had the 
Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show,

[[Page H9277]]

the largest one in the world, the week before last. All those yachts 
were lifted, but those little dinghies with the people fishing out in 
Lake Okeechobee were not lifted one doggone bit by this particular 
measure.
  This bill does so on the backs of middle and working class people and 
future generations.
  With this bill, the former deficit hawk Republican majority would add 
$1.5 trillion to the debt while potentially triggering $25 billion in 
cuts to Medicare. I might add that is where they are headed. Look out 
Medicare, look out Social Security, look out Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida, Judge Hastings, for his exemplary work and the work of his 
colleagues on the Rules Committee and my colleagues also on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. Speaker, our previous speaker, the gentleman from Butler, 
Pennsylvania, Mike Kelly, had it best when he said: `` . . . an economy 
hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to 
balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough 
profits. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction 
can pave the way to that employment.''
  What he did not say is--that will be in the record--is that John F. 
Kennedy said this on December 14, 1962, 55 years ago, in an address to 
the Economic Club of New York.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, there have been a lot of people here who have 
given testimony, I think testimony that they intended to sway the 
voters and those listening in this country that the Tax Code that we 
have works just fine, but then they spoke about the frailties of that 
and they talked about jobs going offshore, they talked about jobs and 
economic activity going somewhere else.
  I, being from Dallas, Texas, hear stories every day about people who 
are coming to Texas, coming to north Texas, coming because of the 
economic climate that will allow them and their companies to have a 
better shot at not only being competitive, but, as Mike Kelly said, to 
be winners in this economy, at the very top of the heap rather than at 
the bottom of the heap.
  What this common denominator is, is that my State of Texas does do 
the things that this bill does also. It keeps taxes low, it creates 
opportunity.
  By the way, how many poor people create jobs?
  I don't know.
  How many of those who really have incentive and entrepreneurship 
create jobs?
  A ton of them.
  We are going to grow entrepreneurs out of today. We are going to grow 
young people getting out of college, veterans leaving the military 
coming back and seeing where they can make a go of it. Instead of it 
being a 95 percent failure rate of new business--which is what it is, 
it is a heavy bar because of rules, regulations, and taxes--we are 
going to make it easier.
  The White House Council of Economic Advisers based their review, as 
they provided the economic outlook to us, on more than 100 academic 
papers, estimates that corporate provisions in this tax bill alone will 
grow our economy, not leave us in 23rd place, as Mike Kelly said.
  Who wants to be in 23rd place?
  If you want to be in the top 25 and you are comfortable, sorry.
  We want to be at the top. We want to Make America Great Again. We 
want to be able to say that businesses all over the United States stand 
a chance, and that is what this does.
  The Council of Economic Advisers says that this will grow the economy 
between 3 and 5 percent.
  Whoops. They got comfortable with 1.2 over 8 years. I am not 
comfortable and the American people aren't comfortable either.
  We are going to add some $700 billion to the economy this next 10 
years. That is the guess, that is what Republicans want to do, but it 
is based on a lot of factors, it is based on hard work.
  America has the best, most innovative workers in the world. We want 
to put this together with an opportunity, because we have a great place 
to be: the United States of America, any of our States. We have the 
best energy policies in the world and we have the best price. We have 
the best workers. We have tool kits with our universities. Our industry 
will grow back and reinvest in themselves.
  We are going to take our Tax Code and take what is $5.6 trillion 
worth of tax areas and move that where it will boost our economy. We 
will become pro growth again. Yes, we heard that it was John F. 
Kennedy, it was Ronald Reagan, and it is going to be making America 
great again.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and the underlying legislation in order to boost middle class 
Americans.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Rule for Rules Committee Print 115-39, to H.R. 1, ``Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act.''
  The underlying bill will cut funding for programs that the American 
people need by $5.4 trillion over 10 years.
  It will raise the deficit by $2.2 trillion 10 years.
  This is bad for America.
  The chief motivation for House Republicans brings this bill before 
the House is to say they had a win before we break for the Thanksgiving 
Holiday.
  This rule if adopted will allow the House to take up consideration of 
a bill that will cost taxpayers because it:
  Eliminates the $4,050 personal exemption allowed to each taxpayer for 
their self, spouse, and each dependent child;
  Raises the lowest individual income tax rate from 10 percent to 12 
percent
  Reduces the tax rate corporations pay on existing offshore profits 
from 35 percent to 10 percent; and
  Cuts the corporate tax rate paid by large companies.
  The Jackson Lee Amendments to Rules Committee Print 115-39 were 
offered as means of improving the bill:
  (1) The first Jackson Lee Amendment would delay the effective date of 
all revenue-reducing provisions in H.R. 1 until the Secretary of 
Homeland Security submits to Congress a report certifying that the 
areas covered by Presidential Natural Disaster Declarations for 
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have fully recovered economically, 
as measured by a gross domestic product that exceeds by 10 percent the 
gross domestic product for such areas in the fiscal year preceding the 
Presidential Disaster Declaration; and the deficit is zero.
  (2) The second Jackson Lee Amendment would delay the effective date 
of all revenue-reducing provisions in H.R. 1 until the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services submits to Congress a report certifying that 
the number of U.S. adults without health insurance has not exceeded 
five percent for three consecutive quarters; and the deficit is zero.
  (3) The third Jackson Lee Amendment preserves current law for 
deductions of student loan interest and other educational incentive.
  (4) The fourth Jackson Lee Amendment preserves current law for 
taxpayer deduction of mortgage interest.
  Our work should be focused on lifting people up and not taking 
opportunities away.
  The $4,700 standard deduction for families will be eliminated by the 
bill governed by this rule to give a tax cut to corporations.
  The recovery from Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma which impacted 
the Texas, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have long gone, 
but the efforts of people to reclaim their lives continues.
  These families will need that $4,700.
  In the State of Texas Hurricane Harvey is on record as the worst 
disaster to hit homeowners in the United States with over 148,000 homes 
and 163,000 apartments just in Houston impacted.
  There are still 9,100 families in hotels and are in need of assurance 
that they will be able to return to their own homes.
  We know that the costs of recovery will far exceed any natural 
disaster in memory.
  We should set a national goal for extending health insurance coverage 
not looking for ways to destabilize the health insurance marketplace.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act in the state of Texas:
  3.8 million Texas residents receive preventative care services.
  7 million Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare 
insurance.
  300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance 
until age 26.
  5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their 
insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on 
healthcare.
  4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health insurance.
  Today, insurance companies are banned from:

[[Page H9278]]

  discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition
  charging higher rates based on gender or health status
  enforcing lifetime dollar limits
  enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits
  Savings for Texas Seniors on Their Prescription Drugs, Thanks to ACA:
  Total Savings: $551,694,997
  Total Gap Discount Amount: $201,876,665
  Total Number of Beneficiaries: 233,114
  Average Discount per Beneficiary: $866
  Congress should support expansion of access to healthcare because it 
will save lives and relieve suffering of those who would otherwise not 
have care when they need it most.
  Our nation is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. Growing 
demand for rental housing has resulted in higher rents. More families 
than ever before struggle to pay their rent each month, and every 
Congressional district and state across the nation is impacted.
  The federal should continue its investments in homeownership that 
reduce homelessness and housing poverty are sorely underfunded:
  Just one in four low income families eligible for federal housing 
assistance receives the help they need.
  Comprehensive tax reform provides one of the best opportunities to 
end homelessness and housing poverty once and for all. As Congress 
considers comprehensive tax reform legislation, we urge you to seize 
this opportunity by reinvesting any savings derived from changes to the 
mortgage interest deduction into rental housing solutions for people 
with the greatest needs--not to offset the cost of tax breaks for the 
wealthy and corporations.
  In doing so, we can make the critical investments that our nation 
needs to help America's families, our local communities, and our 
national economy thrives.
  We know the key to reducing poverty and increasing economic mobility 
is access to safe and affordable homes. Increasing access to affordable 
homes bolsters child and family success, economic growth, wages, and 
productivity. And each dollar invested in developing and preserving 
affordable homes boosts local economies by leveraging public and 
private resources to generate income--including resident earnings and 
additional local tax revenue--and supports job creation and retention.
  Congress as in the past should continue to champion homeownership 
because the benefits that comes to families and communities.
  Our nation should be reinvesting these housing dollars into deeply 
targeted programs that serve people with the most acute housing needs.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
letter from Thomas Barthold to Chairman Kevin Brody:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                 Washington, DC, November 14 2017.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady: You asked me to comment on the changes 
     made by H.R. 1 as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
     Ways and Means in the context of Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI sets special passage requirements 
     for measures that amend subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), or 
     (e) of section 1 or section 11(b) or 55(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code in a manner that imposes a new percentage rate 
     of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by 
     such section. H.R. 1 amends the relevant sections by 
     eliminating the 10-percent bracket, which is obviated as a 
     marginal rate as a result of the increase in the standard 
     deduction provided in section 63(c) and makes general changes 
     to the income thresholds at which the varying tax rate 
     brackets apply and eliminating several other tax rates of 
     present law. These changes combined with the increased value 
     of the child tax credit (in section 24) result in virtually 
     every taxpayer who formerly would have been in the 10-percent 
     tax bracket having a lower tax liability under the changes 
     that would be effectuated by H.R. 1 than they would under 
     present law.
       Similarly, H.R. 1 eliminates the present-law 33-percent 
     marginal tax bracket. As a result there are some taxpayers 
     who would claim the standard deduction and had his or her 
     last dollar of income taxed in the 33-percent tax bracket 
     under present law but under H.R. 1 after claiming the 
     increased the standard deduction would have their last dollar 
     of income taxed in the 35-percent tax bracket. However, in 
     each such case the taxpayer's total income tax liability is 
     lower under H.R. 1 than under present law. For taxpayers who 
     eschew the standard deduction under present law there is 
     substantially greater variability in resulting tax 
     liabilities. With the elimination of some deductions that 
     taxpayers may elect to itemize under present law, it is not 
     possible to say in all cases that these taxpayers have lower 
     total income tax liability under H.R. 1 than under present 
     law. However, by comparison to the case of a taxpayer 
     claiming the standard deduction, the variability of these 
     results is clearly a consequence of the changes to the tax 
     base effectuated by H.R. 1 rather than a consequence solely 
     of the elimination of the present-law 33-percent bracket.
       Because the House rule does not contemplate changes to the 
     Internal Revenue Code as a whole and the interactions such 
     changes have on tax liability, H.R. 1 requires a waiver of 
     the rule's provisions. In its totality, the combined effect 
     of the tax rate and income threshold amendments made by the 
     bill, along with the increase in the standard deduction, 
     would not, in and of themselves, result in an increase in the 
     amount of tax imposed on virtually any filer as a result of 
     these changes.
       I hope this discussion is helpful. Please contact me with 
     any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas A. Barthold.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 619 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 5. 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 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. Sec. 164).
       (b) 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

[[Page H9279]]

     for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and 
     allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer 
     an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. HASTINGS. 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
  Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2331.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 193, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 632]

                               YEAS--234

     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 (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)
     Curtis
     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)
     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
     Long
     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
     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 (NE)
     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)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--193

     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)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     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 (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Johnson, Sam
     McGovern
     Pocan
     Renacc

                              {time}  1420

  Mses. TITUS and BARRAGAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. FOXX, Messrs. WALDEN, and JOYCE of Ohio changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe 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. HASTINGS. 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 235, 
noes 191, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 633]

                               AYES--235

     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 (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)
     Curtis
     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)
     Jones
     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
     Long
     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
     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 (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers

[[Page H9280]]


     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--191

     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.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     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 (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Johnson, Sam
     McGovern
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Renacci


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1429

  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.

                          ____________________