[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.
____________________