[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 197 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9602-H9613]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1, TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, 
and by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Brady of Texas moves that the House take from the 
     Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 1, with the Senate amendment 
     thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this motion to go 
to conference on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting to advance this progrowth, profamily tax reform 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 192, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 653]

                               YEAS--222

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     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
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)

[[Page H9603]]


     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)

                               NAYS--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     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
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Beatty
     Bishop (UT)
     Bridenstine
     Buchanan
     Conyers
     Curtis
     Flores
     Gutierrez
     Kennedy
     Kihuen
     Loebsack
     Love
     Pocan
     Quigley
     Renacci
     Rokita
     Scalise
     Stewart
     Walz

                              {time}  1904

  Mses. JAYAPAL, WILSON of Florida, and Mr. THOMPSON of California 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MEADOWS, DesJARLAIS, MASSIE, BIGGS, NORMAN, BUDD, BUCK, 
GOSAR, JORDAN, and HARRIS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 653.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed to--
       (1) disagree with section 11081 of the Senate amendment 
     (relating to elimination of shared responsibility payment for 
     individuals failing to maintain minimum essential coverage), 
     and
       (2) recede from section 1303 of the House bill (relating to 
     repeal of deduction for certain taxes not paid or accrued in 
     a trade or business).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEAL. 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this could be a long few days if they can't agree on a 
motion to go to conference. That is not exactly the most heightened 
controversy we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the Democratic motion to 
instruct conferees on the Ryan-McConnell tax package and in strong 
opposition to the Republican tax plan.
  Behind me is a replica of the national debt clock. This clock was 
just reconfigured. New features have been added just in time for the 
Republicans to acknowledge that they are about to add $1 trillion to 
this national debt clock, which they tortured Democratic Presidents on 
for years about the debt.
  So let me provide you with some historical perspective. In January of 
2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were looking at a $5.4 
trillion surplus, four straight balanced budgets, and record economic 
growth. The CBO said that the surplus might even go beyond $5.6 
trillion.
  But what really happened during that period of time?
  After the Bush administration left, we were staring at $6.1 trillion 
worth of debt.
  So what happened?
  In 2001, the Republican Party cut taxes by $1.3 trillion and said it 
was all about economic growth. Then they came back in 2003 and said: 
Well, the growth hasn't been substantial enough, so we are going to cut 
taxes by another $1 trillion, $2.3 trillion of tax cuts, and a 
repatriation tax holiday where the money is returned at 5.25 percent on 
the promise of economic growth and job creation; none of which 
happened.
  So where are we tonight?
  We are back to the same old pattern and playbook that they continue 
to utilize. They promised job growth. In a meeting with the President 
recently, he said he didn't understand why we couldn't have job growth 
of 4, 5, or 6 percent. I don't know an economist who thinks we are 
going to have 6 percent economic growth, but they use that as the 
linchpin, the excuse for a tax cut that is going to add $1 trillion to 
the budget deficits, all based on the following economic assumption: 
maybe.
  Maybe we will have growth that will help us to pay down the debt. All 
of the mainstream economists say maybe a return of one-third on the tax 
cuts in terms of revenue. Joint Committee on Taxation, The Wharton 
School, the Tax Policy Center, moodys.com, they all say the same thing: 
None of this is going to happen.
  So we are also back to a familiar argument that they hear, and I 
think you should pay some attention to this for the moment.
  They will say things repeatedly like: It is the people's money. The 
people know what to do with it.
  Well, let me say this as well tonight: It is the people's veterans 
hospitals; one million new veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan who are 
going to be in need of long-term care. That is the people's 
responsibility.
  In addition, 10,000 baby boomers retire every single day in America. 
Social Security is part of their retirement system, even as it averages 
about $15,000 for American citizens.
  We are going to live longer, and we herald that achievement 
regularly, but it is also going to mean more Alzheimer's and more 
dementia that families are going to have to reconcile, and they are 
going to come back and say at the right moment: Oh, because there is 
less revenue, we are going to have to have cuts in social spending.
  So they are going to say at the right moment: Oh, we are going to 
have to now change the way we calculate Medicare and Social Security.
  This is a missed opportunity above everything else. Everybody agrees 
on what is wrong with the Tax Code.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a chance here to do some investment in human 
capital: community colleges, vocational education, internship programs. 
The

[[Page H9604]]

Labor Department reported 3 weeks ago, 6 million jobs go unanswered in 
America every single day.
  I hope tonight, as the Republicans confer, they can tell us where 
they are actually conferring because, between the paste and the bubble 
gum, they keep putting on a new dimension to their proposal.

  This should be a debate that included both parties. Before I reserve 
my time, for the moment, I want to say this: We had a chance to really 
do something big. They have, unbelievably, proposed to take the entire 
revenue architecture of this country in 3 weeks without one hearing, 
without one witness. They are going to change it all, and the middle 
class is about to get it in the neck to take care of people at the top.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct. Today, we are 
moving to the crucial final stage in delivering once-in-a-generation 
tax reform to the American people. The choice we face now is clear.
  Do we want to stick with this complex, costly, unfair system that, 
today, caters to special interests and drives American jobs overseas?
  Do we want to stick with the slow-growth Tax Code that keeps our 
economy in second gear and all but guarantees rising debt and deficits?
  Or do we think it is time to go in a new direction? Do we think it is 
finally time to provide our workers, our families, and our job creators 
with a Tax Code that is simple, that is fair, that is built to create 
jobs and leapfrog America back into the lead pack around the world?

                              {time}  1915

  Do we think it is time to get our economy growing again, I mean, 
truly growing, where better jobs, bigger paychecks, and more 
opportunity are available to people throughout this country?
  Many in Washington say they support tax reform, yet every argument we 
hear is about keeping taxes higher, keeping the growth of jobs and 
paychecks lower, and keeping more of this broken Tax Code that is so 
complex and so unfair to everyday Americans.
  It almost seems too many in Congress are rooting against a growing 
and prosperous American economy. Too many who claim to be concerned 
about the deficit today joyfully added trillions of dollars to the 
national deficit when it meant Washington could spend more.
  When our friends on the other side took control of the House, in the 
first year, they doubled the deficit. In the second year, they tripled 
the deficit. They then went on a roll of $1 trillion of more debt every 
year. In fact, they voted for a $1 trillion stimulus, absolutely unpaid 
for, that did nothing to grow the economy. That was when Washington 
could spend. But now, when it comes to letting families and our Main 
Street businesses spend more of their own hard-earned money, all of a 
sudden they say ``no.''
  Come on.
  If you ask my constituents in Texas, they will tell you, without a 
doubt, it is time to go in a new direction. It is time to be progrowth. 
It is time to leave this slow-growth status quo behind us for good.
  Without a doubt, my constituents and so many Americans throughout our 
country are rooting for a healthier, stronger economy and a simpler, 
fairer Tax Code that allows them to keep more of their hard-earned 
money. That is why, right now, it is time for us to come together in a 
conference committee and finalize the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for the 
American people.
  When the Ways and Means Committee started working on tax reform over 
6 years ago, we knew this road would be long and difficult. We have had 
our share of ups and downs along the way, but we stuck with it because 
we knew the American people were counting on us. We know they are 
counting on us now.
  So, with this conference committee, we are going to come together to 
give the American people the best of what our two bills have to offer. 
At every step, we are going to ask ourselves:
  How can we truly deliver the Tax Code Americans deserve?
  How do we drive rates lower for families?
  How do we encourage more investment in job creation on Main Street?
  How do we bring jobs back to America from overseas?
  How can we better support parents and students and homeowners and 
retirees?
  How can we make our economy stronger and healthier than ever?
  How can we improve lives across our country?
  We have all worked hard to get to this point in the process. I am 
proud of the bill we have delivered in the House, and I want to 
congratulate the Senate as well.
  Right now, we are closer than ever to delivering on our tax reform 
promise to the American people, but some of our most important work is 
still ahead of us.
  Now is the time for us to dig deep on behalf of the people we were 
sent here to serve. Now is the time for us to come together in a 
conference committee and unite behind one historic tax cut bill that 
will help Americans in all walks of life.
  This truly is the moment and the opportunity that we and so many 
Americans have worked for and waited for and deserve. Now is the time 
to seize it. Working truly together, I am confident we will.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct 
that kills tax reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), who announced this past weekend that he is going 
to leave this institution. He has served this institution with 
distinction and grace for a long period of time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee says: Come together.
  You have done it alone. You have snubbed your nose at the American 
people as well as the process of this institution.
  The GOP tax bill combines the Republicans' long-term faith in 
trickle-down economics with a new, brazen disregard for the facts that 
have become the hallmark of the Trump Presidency.
  This bill is mostly about cutting taxes for the very wealthy, not the 
middle class. Making the very wealthy even richer is not the path to 
broad-based economic prosperity and growth. Tax cuts for the very top 
do not pay for themselves; instead, they increase the debt. These are 
the facts that have been presented by the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
and so many others have called the Republican bill a boondoggle and 
delusional.
  Republicans say the facts be damned as they rush this legislation out 
of desperation, not deliberation
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that a family of 
four in Michigan's Ninth District will save over $1,700 each and every 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Roskam), the chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee and a leader on 
the tax reform effort.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I direct the membership's attention to an 
argument the ranking member made a couple of minutes ago where he 
criticized repatriation efforts in the past. He is right; they 
underperformed.
  Why did they underperform?
  They were a holiday. It was temporary. So we learned from that. I 
wasn't around when it happened, but we have learned from that, Mr. 
Speaker, and we are saying let's not do that again. Let's have a 
permanent policy that unlocks American dollars that are locked out 
overseas right now. Most folks think it is between $3 trillion and $4 
trillion that can come back home.
  Where does that come back home?
  It will come to the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois. It will 
go to Massachusetts. It will go to Texas. It will go to all of these 
places to be reinvested.
  Why?
  This is a dynamic, vibrant economy that can become better. This is an 
attractive place. We just need to make it better.
  The other argument that he made, essentially, is: Look, is this 
really going to create growth?
  He is right to point out that not all tax cuts are created equal as 
it relates to growth. The whole purpose, though,

[[Page H9605]]

is not simply growth. It is also tax relief.
  I have got a constituency that got jammed by Democrats in the 
Illinois General Assembly this year with a massive tax hike on the 
middle-income folks in Illinois. They need relief. So part of this is 
to offer relief.
  The way that we have approached this is to say let's create this as 
it relates to the investment and expensing. If you look at the Tax 
Foundation and the nonpartisan work that they have done, they will tell 
you, that investment that we are making--that is, throwing away 
depreciation schedules and telling small businesses, if you invest, you 
can write it all off in year one--that creates activity.
  So, we ought to shed and shun this motion to instruct and, instead, 
let's work through the normal conference process.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me give you one quick anecdote. A 
manufacturer in my district told me this. They are planning to invest 
$30 million in their manufacturing plant. Next year, if we do this 
bill, they are not going to invest $30 million in that facility; they 
are going to invest $50 million.
  That is one company in one cul-de-sac in one subdivision in suburban 
Chicago. If you ripple that throughout the entire economy, great things 
happen.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion, and let's proceed to conference.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, more than a bill, this is a lie wrapped in 
lies, a sneak attack on America ramming through here at warp speed 
before the truth catches up with the lies. A very thin sugarcoating of 
tax changes for some in the middle class conceals massive special 
interest giveaways.
  But I am convinced that the reckoning will come. Americans will 
demand accountability for a scheme that showers its benefits 
overwhelmingly on corporations and those at the top of the economic 
ladder, including the Trump family personally benefiting.
  The reckoning will come when students and the sick find out they are 
paying not less taxes, but more taxes, under this bill.
  The reckoning will come as Republicans use the huge debt burden that 
they are deliberately creating by this bill as an excuse to cut 
Medicare, educational opportunities, and other vital investments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This sham of a bill provides rewards to corporate tax 
dodgers and creates a giant new loophole for outsourcing American jobs 
abroad.
  The only coming together here is the coming together between the 
master of distraction, the big tweet down the street, who is joined 
here by the masters of deceit in Congress. They ignore any wrong he 
commits. He can embrace child molesters; he can attack our law 
enforcement officers; he can challenge the very basis of the free press 
in our country, using any means necessary, whatever deception, to try 
to foist off this sham of a bill on America.
  It should be rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the average family 
of four making $59,000 a year in the 35th District of Texas will see a 
tax cut of over $1,100.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed), a key leader of the Ways and Means Committee who knows what it 
is like to create jobs in New York.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech this evening, I just want to 
take a moment.
  I just heard a colleague on the other side of the aisle call me, 
essentially, a master of deceit. This country is sick and tired of this 
type of divisive rhetoric. I am here to tell you that it is time to put 
the American people first.
  I understand that we sit sometimes in this Chamber in the biggest 
political theater in the United States of America, but at some point in 
time I have got to say enough is enough.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would ask us and 
the American people back home to look at the legislation that we have 
done in the committee.
  The bottom line, in the House bill, hardworking taxpayers in my 
district are going to see $1,600 of their hard-earned dollars remain in 
their pocket with the government not taking that money away from them.
  There are differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. I 
think there are legitimate parts to the Senate bill we should consider 
in this conference committee that we are going to entertain here very 
shortly. They are things like the medical expense deduction, things 
like, potentially, the historic tax credit. But that is how legislation 
is drafted. We have a body in the Senate, we have a body in the House, 
and we come together to put the best product forward for the American 
people.
  I will tell you, as I have heard from my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, if reducing taxes is not a part of economic growth, then 
you disagree with every Governor in the United States of America, 
because every Governor's economic development plan across this country, 
what does it do?
  You see the commercials as you travel around this country: Come to 
New York State; we are open for business because we have lowered our 
taxes for opportunities and growth. I see it in Illinois. I see it in 
California. I see it in Texas.
  So what we have done with the proposal in the House is exactly that. 
We have focused relief on hardworking taxpayers, and we have lowered 
the tax burden overall so that people can invest in their businesses, 
invest in their families, and grow the economy, which, at the end of 
the day, do you know what that means for an American person?
  It means more money for them, but, most importantly, it means a job--
a job not only to make money, but it is good for the soul. It is good 
for the heart. It brings you pride in knowing that you did an honest 
day's work to get an honest day's amount of pay. That is what growth is 
about. It is not about numbers. It is about people and opportunity.
  I ask my colleagues, join us in rejecting this motion to instruct, 
and let's get to the business of the people and finish the job once and 
for all.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), a valued member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
motion.
  The underlying bill raises taxes on millions of middle class working 
Americans; it adds over $2.3 trillion to our national debt; and if the 
Senate has its way, 13 million people will lose their healthcare.
  This bill was written behind closed doors by a handful of Republicans 
to give massive permanent tax breaks to corporations at the cost of our 
middle class working Americans. Not one legislative hearing was held in 
the House on this bill. The Senate bill was passed in the dark hours of 
the night with scribbles in the margins.
  Every single person in our country should know how their Member of 
Congress voted on this, because you and your children will be paying 
for it for decades to come.
  This is a bad bill. I hope this will be a serious conference to 
improve this reckless piece of legislation.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the average 
family of four in the Fifth District of California will see a tax cut 
of over $2,370.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Rice), a key leader of tax reform who has a terrific accounting 
and business background.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is what 
separates us from the rest of the world. It promises that, with hard 
work and determination, you can improve your station in life and that 
your children have the opportunity for a better life than yours; but 
for many in the generation coming of age in the past decade, the 
American Dream has been a little tarnished, just out of reach.

[[Page H9606]]

  The last time we did tax reform was 30 years ago. At that time, we 
were the world's uncontested economic leader, our economic system and 
Tax Code were competitive; but for decades, we have sat idly as the 
world restructured to pass us by.
  As we became less competitive, more and more American companies and 
American jobs left our shores. What has been the result? We have lost 
millions of middle class jobs.
  In 1990, the middle class comprised 50 percent of American families, 
today only 40 percent. Today the middle class makes just about the same 
take-home pay as they did in 1990, 27 years later.
  When we all worry about income disparity and the gulf between the 
rich and the poor in this country, this is the source of the problem. 
The American middle class is smaller and has not had a raise in 30 
years.
  How could this happen? It has everything to do with this bloated, 
overregulating, and overtaxing Federal Government, a government that 
sucks the life out of the economy and forces our companies, our 
innovators, and our job creators out of the country to survive.
  Some folks say it doesn't matter that we have the highest business 
tax rate in the world; that is not why companies left. They say those 
jobs aren't coming back.
  Well, I say the outdated Tax Code is an anchor around the neck of 
American business, our innovators, and our American middle class. I say 
the American worker can compete with anyone on a level playing field if 
we just get government out of the way.
  Since January, we have been working to correct that. We have made 
dramatic steps in reducing regulation, and you are already seeing the 
economic lift.
  Today we continue to advance a tax cut which will restore economic 
growth, put more take-home pay into the pockets of hardworking 
Americans, and restore opportunity for a generation. It will bring 
American jobs back to America, which will grow our middle class, and 
finally, after 30 years, give the middle class the pay raise it 
deserves.
  If you really wish to grow the economy, you should support this tax 
reform package. If you really wish to give the middle class a raise, 
you should support tax reform. If you really wish to reduce income 
disparity, you should support this tax reform package. If you really 
wish to give hope to Americans who have given up and left the 
workforce, and reduce crime and addiction in this country, you should 
support this tax reform package. If you want America to have the 
economic strength to remain a force of peace and stability in the 
world, you should support this tax reform package.
  Finally, if you support the American Dream, you should support this 
tax reform package.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), a neighbor and a good friend.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record 
at a later time a notice from both the comptroller and the commissioner 
of Revenue Services for the State of Connecticut, who notes that a 
married family with a kid in college would see a $767 tax increase next 
year and a $1,667 increase in the year 2027.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already protested what we think about this bill, 
what they have done to this process, the stain that this is on this 
institution.
  1986 has been cited. No public hearings. We had 30 hearings, 12 
subcommittee hearings, 456 witnesses. We have none, and now you do a 
bill in double secret probation. You make Dean Wormer look good from 
``Animal House''. This is what is wrong with this process here today.
  The cruelest cut is that you perpetrate a $25 billion cut in Medicare 
that you don't even have to vote on. That is the worst cut. Talk about 
a cowardly act in the night: a $25 billion cut to our seniors. No 
wonder the AARP has spoken out so strongly against it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded that they should 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to remind the House that 
a family of four in Connecticut's First District will see a tax cut of 
$3,858 each and every year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert), a new member and a key member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, before I start, what I wanted to share is I have been 
blessed to be on the Ways and Means Committee now for 11 months. I have 
found the members on the left, the right, a group of folks with pretty 
high IQs. It is a smart bunch. We have different views, even within our 
own, within your own, but it is fascinating. It is joyful to be on a 
committee where when you do argue with each other, particularly when we 
have conversations in the back, they happen at a fairly high level.
  Can I give you sort of a personal global view of how I am viewing 
this tax reform? I truly believe this will be the single biggest, most 
important vote I make in my life.
  We all know what status quo is. Status quo, in many of the models, 
basically says, in about 15, 18 years, we hit a debt crisis. Are we 
arguing here for status quo or our change, or are we having an argument 
here that you don't like our changes, but you also agree we need to 
have a revolution in our economic growth?
  If we build our lives as it is set right now with a 1.8, 1.9 percent 
GDP growth for the next three decades, my 2-year-old's future is 
miserable. Those very seniors whom someone was just speaking about, do 
you understand what happens to those earned entitlements? There is no 
money. We hit a debt crisis. We are just a few years away from publicly 
held debt equaling the size of our entire economy.
  If you love people, if you care about this country keeping its 
promises, we have got to grow. We have seen the attempts at sort of 
managed economy, managed control, managed targeted.
  How about something much more elegant: let's make us competitive in 
the world again; let's get rid of all the lobbyist-created little 
special deals in the Tax Code, or as many as we can politically, and do 
everything we can to get this economy growing.
  Yes, it is going to require more, in my view of the world, than tax 
reform. We are going to have to deal with immigration, we are going to 
have to deal with technology, we are going to have to deal with 
regulation, but we all know around here that if we do not have a 
revolution in this Tax Code, our future is pretty dark.
  With economic growth, our future is actually really bright. When you 
see the Atlanta Fed telling us, just in anticipation of tax reform, we 
have crossed 3\1/2\ percent GDP growth right now, maybe that 1.8 
percent misery of economic growth isn't our future, isn't the future 
for my little girl, isn't the future for every American, but it is an 
opportunity for this country to start looking as it should: a land of 
opportunity.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer), a particular champion of all renewable energy forms.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I listen to my friend from Arizona, and 
I wonder what planet he is on. He is concerned about his little 2-year-
old, yet they finance the largest transfer of wealth in our Nation's 
history by adding more debt on the backs of his children, our 
grandchildren, and generations to come.
  They want the public to have more of their money, yet they are not 
supporting our motion to instruct that would stop this notion that we 
are going to jack up premium prices 10 percent a year by destabilizing 
the insurance markets, the notion of these ugly surprises that the 
lobbyists have snuck in, and we will find out about them every single 
week going forward.
  Reject this misguided approach. Let's work together.
  Rebuild and renew America? The States can raise a gas tax. We refuse 
to acknowledge a straightforward proposition to do that here.
  Let's reject this atrocity.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would note that a family of four 
in Oregon's Third District will see tax savings of $2,256.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9607]]

  

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very important member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the President himself will see a financial 
windfall. If the majority wasn't helping him hide his tax returns, the 
American people could see the truth.
  The bill exacerbates dramatic and historic health inequality, wealth 
inequality. Adding $1.5 trillion to our national debt, as this bill 
does, without benefiting the middle and working class is legislative 
malpractice.
  So while Republicans tout this as a middle class tax cut, some 
taxpayers at every income level will pay more on this bill. A middle-
aged married couple with no children earning $80,900 a year who itemize 
could end up paying $4,330 more in 2018. Many of my constituents will 
see a big tax increase after losing the full State and local tax 
deduction. That is absurd.
  The authors of this bill said all of the individual tax cuts will 
expire after 2025, as well as change the measure of inflation, which 
will slowly bump taxpayers into higher income brackets. Are we kidding, 
and who are we kidding?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that family of four in New Jersey's 
Ninth District making $90,000 a year, two workers, will see a tax cut 
of $2,044.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the leadership of the Democratic Party. 
I think he is going to tell us about what the elimination of the State 
and local tax deduction means to the people of New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleague and friend from 
Texas that the specifics he is talking about are temporary as they are 
applied to personal income tax, but they are permanent for 
corporations. All of your tax cuts are permanent for the corporate 
world, but not for individuals.
  He talks about a family of four. Take it for $1,100 a year, divide it 
by four, it is $250.

                              {time}  1945

  They are going to borrow $1.5 trillion. Divide it by 300 million, and 
that is $5,000 per American. Do the math. They are spending the future 
of our country to give the biggest tax cut to corporations and the 
wealthiest--$4 billion alone to the Trump family. You do this on the 
backs by double taxation in places like Pennsylvania, New York, 
California, and New Jersey, where you are double taxing through the 
SALT provision, State and local taxes.
  This is going to have an incredible impact on the lives of your 
constituents. How anyone with a conscience on the Republican side of 
the aisle could support this bill in California, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and all the other tax States in this country is 
unconscionable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that they should direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the 
median family of four in New York's 14th District making $63,000 a year 
working hard will see a tax cut of $1,251.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a valued member of the Ways and 
Means Committee. The gentleman is also a great champion of new markets 
tax credits and the historic tax credit which is eliminated in the 
Republican tax plan.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in every place that I 
went yesterday, people asked me: What are you going to say to the 
conferees?
  I said that I am going to join with my colleagues and say to the 
conferees: Help the needy and not the greedy.
  I am going to say to the conferees: Why give 50 percent of the tax 
break to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population in this country?
  I am going to say: Why cut Medicare, Medicaid, and provisions of the 
Affordable Care Act that have kept millions of people from having the 
agony, pain, and frustration of not being able to find healthcare?
  I am going to say: Save the children; save the veterans; save the 
center cities that are decayed; save the infrastructure; save the 
safety net; and save America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that that 
median family of four with two kids in the Seventh District of Illinois 
making $73,000 really working hard where every dollar counts will see a 
tax cut of $1,546.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Higgins), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, it has been said by the U.S. 
Treasury Secretary that tax cuts pay for themselves. He says that not 
only will these corporate taxes pay for themselves, they will add an 
additional $2 trillion in economic activity. Nobody believes that. 
There is no credible report that supports that contention.
  What do pay for themselves are tax credits, particularly the Federal 
historic tax credit. That is one that returns generously to the Federal 
Treasury. The Federal historic tax credit returns more to the Treasury 
than it costs. In fact, $25 billion in credits have returned $29 
billion to the Federal Treasury; $5 of private investment is made for 
every dollar in the Federal historic tax credit program.
  Nationally, $132 billion in private investment has been made because 
of $25 million in Federal historic tax credits. Over 43,000 buildings 
in downtown areas like my community of Buffalo, New York, have 
benefited tremendously from this valuable program.
  It is eliminated in the House bill; it is eliminated in the Senate 
bill; and the conference should restore it as an issue of fairness.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that that 
median family of four making $74,000, blue-collar workers in the 26th 
District of New York, will see a tax cut of $1,562.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who is a great champion of the middle class and a 
Marshall Scholar.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, we are not ready for conference. 
The Senate bill was written by lobbyists in the dead of night when 
Republicans hoped no one was paying attention. There was no CBO score, 
no debate, no time to even read the bill, and now the majority thinks 
this bill is ready to go to conference? Really? Not.
  The House and Senate bills will put us at least $1.4 trillion into 
debt, will cause cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and will raise 
taxes on 82 million Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad deal for Americans, and it is an even 
worse deal for my constituents in Alabama. In my State of Alabama, over 
500,000 families making $80,000 a year or less will see a tax increase. 
It will result in $205 million being taken away from teachers and 
students, and it will put $168 million in charitable donations at risk.
  These bills are not for the middle class. These bills will do 
enormous damage to the middle class.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not ready for conference.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the median 
family of four making $65,000 in Alabama's Seventh District would see a 
tax cut of $1,311.
  I would also point out that the Congressional Budget Office doesn't 
score a tax reform bill. That is the Joint Committee on Taxation. That 
score was available to Ways and Means Committee members the day we 
voted on this bill and available, again, to House Members before we 
approved it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks Republicans have 
been cutting backroom deals that benefit the wealthy and well-connected 
out of the light of day, piling hurt onto people who won't be able to 
speak for themselves.

  Now we are on the verge of being force-fed a bill in which 
corporations

[[Page H9608]]

get massive tax cuts while hardworking Americans are forced to pick up 
the tab. Over the life of the Ryan-McConnell plan, 36 million middle 
class families struggling to pay for healthcare, education, childcare, 
housing, and retirement are going to see their taxes go up. Now 
millions may lose healthcare coverage as well.
  What happened to fiscal responsibility?
  Economists are telling us that the increased debt won't be paid for 
by economic growth, and CEOs are openly sharing their plans to reward 
their shareholders with their new tax breaks--not create jobs.
  This bill is reckless, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
motion.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I point out that a median family of 
four with two kids in Washington's First District will see a tax cut of 
$5,008.
  I would also remind my colleagues that President Obama raised the 
national debt by $9 trillion in new Washington spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), who is a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask a simple question: What 
is the rush? Why are we rushing to vote on a $1.7 trillion tax bill 
that will end up being paid off the backs of working Americans?
  Don't be fooled. Working Americans will pay for this bill. That is 
why the National Association of Realtors warned that the typical 
homeowner in my State could see their home value drop between $37,000 
and $57,000. That is why the Joint Committee on Taxation has said the 
Republican bill would increase costs to college students and their 
families by $71 billion.
  We all know whose retirement Republicans will raid when their overly 
optimistic growth numbers don't materialize. They are going to go after 
your Medicare and Social Security.
  The American people deserve better than this Republican tax scam. 
Instead of rushing to get this done, let's work together to get it done 
right.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that 
hardworking family of four in California's 38th District would see a 
tax cut of $1,870.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is the former revenue commissioner of 
California and who knows something about revenue projections.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, this tax scam is one of the 
greatest cons I have seen in my time in Congress, and Republicans know 
it. Why else would they rush to vote without giving the public time to 
review or understand legislation that impacts 100 percent of our 
economy? In the Senate, they even shattered regular order to pass this 
bill with handwritten, illegible changes in the dead of night on 
Saturday. Perhaps it is because they don't want anybody to see how far 
this bill strays from their promises.
  They promised historic tax cuts, but unless you are already rich or a 
corporation already seeing record profits, you are unlikely to benefit. 
Instead, you and your children will be paying to make the rich richer.
  Republicans don't even deny that individuals get less than 
corporations. But it is okay, they claim, because that money will get 
to you eventually. They keep citing these magical numbers of money that 
you will get, but we know these dollars won't come.
  Whether losing deductions for State and local taxes, paying more for 
student loans, or facing higher healthcare prices, thanks to the repeal 
of the mandate, the GOP tax scam will hurt millions.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that 
hardworking family of four in the 27th District of California will see 
a tax cut of $2,249.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kelly), who is a key member of our Tax Policy Subcommittee and a 
businessperson himself.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to speak 
tonight because I was just trying to figure out what it is that we are 
trying to get here and if it is always going to be the same thing as if 
it is not our bill, just not the bill we want.
  When we talk about a rush to judgment, for 31 years, we have 
postponed the inevitable. We no longer can compete globally because of 
our corporate tax rates and the regulations.
  Our people--and I don't care if they are Republican voters or 
Democratic voters or people that don't vote at all--isn't it time to 
give them a little bit more money in their take-home pay? Isn't it time 
to let them get up in the morning with an idea that ``I can actually be 
better at the end of the day than when I started''? Isn't it time for 
us to talk about bringing millions of jobs back to the United States as 
opposed to sitting here and trying to battle back and forth about 
something that politically doesn't make any sense?
  For the folks who are sitting at home, do they realize how far we are 
getting away from what we pledged we would do for them: a dynamic and 
robust economy that allows for more take-home pay, a dynamic and robust 
economy that allows corporations to flourish and not flounder, and a 
tax plan that absolutely puts America back where it so deservedly 
belongs?
  With all the assets that we are blessed with, with all the talent 
that we are blessed with, and with all the opportunity that we are 
blessed with, can we really think that tonight is the night to turn 
this into a political battle, to make one side look good and one side 
look bad?
  Is it always going to be the war on the wealthy? Is it always going 
to be the war on some entity? Does it have to be some type of identity 
before we can actually back away and say: Tonight we are going to do 
something for every single hardworking American?
  Please, refrain from using the term ``middle class.'' There is 
nothing, I think, that flies more in the face of who we aren't as a 
society than classifying people: ``Oh, they are middle class''; ``Oh, 
they are upper class,'' which leads people to think: ``Oh, there must 
be a lower class.''
  I am asking, tonight, not for either side of the aisle, but for 
America to look at what is going on and say: It is not time for us to 
get back in the game.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is the assistant 
Democratic leader.
  In reference to my friend, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Clyburn is a real champion 
of the middle class.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it is 
time to do all of those things that he just spoke about, but this piece 
of legislation does none of those things. In fact, it raises taxes on 
87 million middle-income families, cuts $25 billion a year from 
Medicare, kicks 13 million people off of their health insurance, makes 
it easier for companies to ship jobs overseas, eliminates long-held 
deductions for teachers, students, and the chronically ill, makes 
individual tax cuts temporary but corporate tax cuts permanent, and 
increases the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion.

                              {time}  2000

  The hypocrisy of so-called conservatives is staggering. Corporations 
will save billions and shareholders will get richer, while our children 
and grandchildren foot the bill.
  The Democratic motion would instruct conferees to protect deductions 
for State and local taxes and restore the Affordable Care Act's 
individual mandate. Doing so will stop 13 million Americans from losing 
their health insurance and put a halt to the 10 percent premium hike 
that CBO estimates the Ryan-McConnell tax scam would cause.
  Mr. Speaker, the individual mandate is at the heart of the Affordable 
Care Act. Repealing it--as the GOP tax scam does--is a deliberate 
attempt to undercut the law, create chaos in the health insurance 
marketplaces, increase premiums, and decrease choice and coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to restore State and local tax 
deductibility and the individual mandate.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I point out that a middle class 
family

[[Page H9609]]

making $74,000, in the Fifth District of South Carolina, will see a tax 
cut of $1,568.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the best legislators in the House, the 
Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as he well knows, is 
one of my favorite Members. He is a good friend. He is a man of great 
integrity. But, Mr. Speaker, both the House and Senate bills are bad 
bills, and this is a sad day in the House.
  Hypocrisy is on stark display. Responsibility is absent, and 
politics--and donors--have subverted policy.
  This conference is a sham: an attempt to make it appear that the 
House and Senate are going through regular order. Sadly, we have not 
gone through regular order. The thought is we will reconcile the two 
versions of the dangerous Republican tax increase and deficit bill. I 
call this a death tax because it will explode the deficit, as happened 
in 1981, when, under Ronald Reagan for 8 years, we increased the debt 
of this country 189 percent.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee mentions Mr. Obama, who 
increased it 88 percent, or less than half of the Reagan increase in 
the debt. And we were promised then, as we are promised now, that 
cutting these taxes would grow the economy. It would if that were the 
case.
  But there won't be any real regular order in this conference, just as 
there hasn't been throughout this entire process. There will only be 
further closed-door, backroom antics by Republican leaders on their 
own, asking Republican Members to take it or leave it. And this motion 
to instruct, of course, will be defeated.
  But Democrats are offering it because, from the very beginning, we 
have made clear that we are here to work toward the kind of tax reform 
that the American people want: tax reform that I worked with in 1986.
  And they don't want an elimination of the deduction for State and 
local taxes, which our motion would instruct the conferees not to do. 
The deductions for State and local taxes support schools and first 
responders in our communities, and the American people don't want to 
kick 13 million people off of their health insurance coverage.
  So our motion would instruct conferees to take that dangerous 
provision out. But no motion to instruct can address all of the ways 
that the Republican tax bill has put our people, and our future, in 
danger.
  The Senate bill raises taxes on somewhere around 78 million middle 
class households, not as a pejorative, but as an income spectrum. Why? 
To offset massive tax cuts for those not with whom we are at war, but 
who are doing very well and don't need our help.
  It plunges our children and grandchildren--of which I have a number--
an additional $1.7 trillion in debt--and I think that is the minimum--
making them pay tomorrow for what Republicans refuse to pay for today.
  And for what? For what, Mr. Speaker, are we being asked to do all of 
these things? For economic growth? For jobs?
  We know it won't grow our economy in any substantial way faster. Why? 
Because almost every economist tells us that. And we know that the few 
jobs the Senate bill would create--and listen to this: that they claim 
that they will create--will cost $1.9 million per job.
  The vast majority of Americans won't benefit from this plan; but 
those who are already extremely wealthy will benefit greatly--as a 
matter of fact, 52 times what the gentleman will tell us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that Texans like to use: 
``That dog won't hunt.'' It doesn't do what it is purported to do. It 
doesn't take Einstein to predict what will happen this time around, 
when he defined insanity as ``doing the same thing over and over again 
and expecting different results.''
  I have been here. I have seen this. I have heard this argument. It 
has always resulted in the same thing.
  I have more to say, but my time is up.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of 
the committee--he is going to tell me how much people in my district 
get a tax break--tell me about my children and my grandchildren whose 
debts he will pile on them to borrow money from China, or someplace 
else, to give this tax cut that they will then have to pay off in their 
time. Tell me how much my children will have their taxes raised.
  He apparently doesn't know. That is sad.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that a median, hardworking, middle 
class family in the Fifth District of Maryland, will see a tax cut of 
$4,158.

  Mr. Speaker, I will remind everyone here tonight that the first year 
our Democrats took over the majority in the House, they doubled the 
deficit. The second year, they tripled the deficit. In the third year, 
it went above $1 trillion a year, and it stayed there until Republicans 
took control of the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
added $9 trillion to this deficit. But that was when Washington was 
spending.
  Today, we want to give people back control of their money, and, all 
of a sudden: Whoa, wait a minute. Deficits suddenly matter?
  I believe that claim is the hypocrisy in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman forgets the 
difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years, as it relates 
to the deficits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I 
thank him, and the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee, 
for being committed to the truth: to the facts.
  To hear the distinguished chairman of the committee say what he said 
about the budget is almost ludicrous, almost laughable, if it weren't 
so serious, in terms of the impact that it has on America's future. He 
knows that, in the last 4, and maybe even 5, years of the Clinton 
administration, the budget was in balance or in surplus--the 
operational budget--and it was on a path to reducing the national debt, 
until President Bush came in, gave tax cuts to the high end, a giveaway 
to the pharmaceutical industry with the Medicare part D legislation, 
and three unpaid for wars.
  That is what the experts will tell you increased the deficit that was 
on a path of the national debt going down. It was a swing, Mr. Speaker, 
of $11 trillion: to date, the biggest swing in history.
  When President Obama came into office, he was inheriting a deficit--I 
am not talking about the national debt; I am just talking about the 
annual deficit--of $1.4 billion. When he left office, it was about a 
third of that.
  So don't try to mislead the American people. We owe them the truth. 
We owe them facts. That is why what is happening tonight in this body 
is so important: the violence that the Republicans are doing with their 
legislation on the economy of our country, robbing from our children's 
future to reward the wealthiest people and biggest corporations in 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues a simple question: 
Who do we represent when we come to this floor?
  The American people, overwhelmingly, oppose the GOP tax scam--they 
see it as that--and they are making their voices heard.
  The American people are calling the Republican Congress to abandon 
the House and Senate bills, which pillage the middle class and pad the 
pockets of big CEOs and GOP donors.
  The American people want us to start over and, actually, put the 
middle class first.
  We should be working in a bipartisan way in order to do that, so that 
it will not only be right, but that it will be sustainable, and that 
there will be some certainty in our economy that this is a path forward 
that has bipartisan support.
  But have the Republicans in the people's House listened to the 
American people? No.

[[Page H9610]]

  Last month, House Republicans voted to raise taxes. In this House, 
House Republicans voted to raise taxes on 36 million middle class 
American families: stripping deductions from students and teachers, 
children and seniors, and homeowners and workers. They kept saying they 
were going to work it out with the Senate.
  Last week, in the dead of night, Senate Republicans voted to raise 
taxes on 78 million middle class families, while also spiking health 
premiums, and exploding the ranks of the health uninsured.
  Tonight, heading into this conference on the House and Senate bills, 
Republicans have sent an unmistakable message to middle class America: 
Pick your poison. Because, with either bill, middle class families 
lose; the American people lose.
  According to an analysis by The Washington Post, the GOP tax scam is 
``probably the most regressive tax cut in the past 50 years. . . . It 
is hard to find a tax plan that has done less for the middle class.''
  That is what we talked about. Who are we here to represent? Why are 
they doing this?
  Well, they are doing this to give a tax cut to the top 1 percent. 
Sixty-two percent of the benefits of the Senate bill go to the top 1 
percent in our country.
  Is that fair, to give nearly $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to corporate 
America, while heaping other benefits on them to make it easier for 
them to send jobs overseas. Why? Well, some of their people have told 
us why.
  Congressman Chris Collins said: My donors are basically saying, ``Get 
it done or don't ever call me again.''
  Senator Lindsey Graham has said the ``financial contributions will 
stop,'' if the tax scam fails. ``Scam'' is my added word.
  The Director of National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, has said: ``The 
most excited group out there are the big CEOs, about our tax plan.''
  This is interesting to see the Freedom Caucus, which I thought was a 
values-based caucus, committed to reducing the national debt: a debt 
that is being added to here that we may never recover from.
  What happened to the Freedom Caucus? Weren't they supposed to be 
deficit hawks? Has that become an endangered species? No. It has become 
extinct. It does not exist on the Republican side, but it does exist on 
the Democratic side.

                              {time}  2015

  We intend to fight this robbing of the future of increasing the 
deficit into the trillions of dollars by fighting this bill to the end.
  Where are all the Republicans who promised to reduce the deficit?
  Where are our Republican colleagues who insist that we have no funds 
to spare for the healthcare of our children, the education of our young 
people, the job-creating infrastructure of the 21st century unless we 
find offsets?
  Yet $1.5 trillion to corporate America, un-offset; tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in our country, un-offset.
  That means children have to pay for their healthcare with their 
immunizations. It is absolutely appalling. It isn't a statement of 
values in any way.
  Today, quietly, the Republicans--and some of them are admitting it 
with glee--are sharpening their knives for Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security. Recognizing how they are increasing, they are soaring 
the national debt, now they have to find some ways to pay for it, so 
they are coming after Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The 
understanding of some is that it is only a question of whether they do 
it this year or a following year after the election.
  Well, I think you are in a lose-lose situation. I think you lose with 
your donors if you don't pass this bill, but you are going to lose with 
the American people if you do.
  Democrats believe that people deserve better. We deserve 
bipartisanship in how we put this together so it is sustainable. We are 
offering a better deal, better jobs, better wages, and a better future.
  The American people deserve real, bipartisan, permanent tax reform 
that puts the middle class first.
  The truth is that our colleagues either choose to ignore or do not 
understand the gravity of the situation. As they say in ``The Music 
Man,'' this is a terrible assault on the middle class. So tonight, with 
the Democrats' motion to instruct conferees, we want the Republicans to 
show where they stand.
  Will Republicans vote ``yes'' to protect the vital State and local 
tax deduction that enables people to live in a safe place? Or will they 
vote to double-tax middle class families, drive down home values, and 
endangering key funding for firefighters, law enforcement, and schools?
  Will Republicans vote to protect the healthcare of those with 
preexisting conditions?
  No, no, no, no, no.
  Or will they vote to spike families' premiums and add 13 million more 
Americans to the ranks of the uninsured if this bill goes through?
  I have said that this, with stiff competition by some of the other 
things they have put forth, is the worst bill in the history of the 
United States Congress.
  Now, how can I make that claim?
  Well, because it involves more money, hurts more people, increases 
the deficit by so much more. And just because everything is bigger in 
our country, the consequences of this bill, a multitrillion-dollar 
economy being addressed by a bill that had no hearings, no expert 
testimony, just with the speed of light, as Jamie Raskin says, the 
speed of light, in the dark of night, here we are.
  Who else thinks this is not a good idea?
  This is what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has 
said: `` . . . this proposal appears to be the first Federal income tax 
modification in American history that will raise income taxes on the 
working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the 
wealthy. This is simply unconscionable.''
  I believe them.
  Let us remember the words of St. Augustine: ``A State which is not 
governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' He 
said that 17 centuries ago.
  When His Holiness Pope Benedict wrote about this in his first 
encyclical, God is Love, he went on to say: Sometimes you have to work 
hard to determine what justice is. But in doing so, you must beware of 
the dazzling blindness of money and power.
  Apparently, you did not heed that.
  Let us look honestly at the GOP tax scam before us. No justice.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on 
the motion to instruct conferees, to at least inject some element of 
fairness and common sense into this destruction, and then to reject 
this terrible bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would point out that a hardworking middle class family in the 12th 
District of California will see a tax cut of $5,508.
  I would point out as well that the claim that this is an attack on 
the middle class and received four Pinocchios is simply untrue by The 
Washington Post.
  And while we are fact-checking, I will remind the American public 
that President Obama did inherit a deficit. He inherited it from a 
Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and then he made it worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard this discussion back and forth tonight 
about tax relief for the middle class; and we have heard the other side 
say that you are going to get $1,189 for a family of four, I think, 
making $59,000 a year.
  But what they don't say is that they are going to take away the State 
and local tax deduction; they are going to take away the ability of 
children to deduct interest payments on student debt; that they are 
going to shave back the mortgage interest deduction; get rid of the 
historic tax credit; that they are going to get rid of new markets tax 
credits.

  And here is the best one of all: as champions of the middle class 
they are, they are going to repeal the estate tax.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is my friend, said that we need 
to stop talking about wealth.

[[Page H9611]]

  Well, how about approaching it this way? We are wealthy and we are 
not going to take it anymore, because that is essentially what this 
argument is about.
  When you look at the distribution tables as to who gets what in this 
tax proposal, the concentration of wealth at the very top is 
highlighted time and again.
  When we talk about tax relief for the middle class, when we examine 
what this is about to do to California, to New York, to Massachusetts, 
and to Connecticut, to name, but a few of the States that are going to 
pay a penalty for this tax plan--
  And I dispute fully what the chairman said about the Obama years. 
Fourteen million jobs were created during the Obama years. Twenty-three 
million jobs were created during the Clinton years. The day that George 
Bush left, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month in America. That is the 
reality.
  When you look at economic growth during those years, the 2 percent 
that we look at was not enough. But it has now been almost 13 years 
when middle class people have not had a pay raise and, time and again, 
we have heard the preposterous argument--and, boy, did it get us into 
trouble--that tax cuts pay for themselves.
  You cannot find a mainstream economist that will say that tax cuts 
pay for themselves.
  Now you hear the repeated argument that, if we cut taxes and we add 
dynamic scoring, based upon what might occur, or maybe, or if, then we 
are told that this is going to alleviate slow productivity and slow 
growth in America, all based upon the premise of tax cuts.
  You know what we should be doing tonight, Mr. Speaker?
  We should be talking about investing in human capital. We should be 
talking about the 6 million jobs that go unanswered in America every 
single day. We should be talking about community colleges. We should be 
talking about the idea of apprenticeship programs and, yes, investing 
in vocational education. We should be also talking about, finally, what 
to do about the 2 million people in America who have opiate addictions 
and don't go to work every day. We should be concerned about the labor 
participation rate in America.
  Instead, the answer always becomes the Holy Grail of Republican 
economics; cut taxes for the people at the very top, and plead the case 
that what you are really doing is for people in the middle class.
  The alternative minimum tax is devoted to people at the top, and the 
idea of repealing the estate tax for so few people in America is 
outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a clear choice. Opponents of tax reform make 
this a clear choice. They stand for business as usual, special 
interests as usual, losing our U.S. jobs overseas as usual, making it 
hard for young people coming out of school to find good-paying jobs as 
usual, and Washington having a greater claim over your earnings than 
you do as usual. That is what the opponents of tax reform stand for 
today.
  Today is about no more of that. It is time to drain the swamp. It is 
time to drain this Tax Code. It is time for a fairer and simpler Tax 
Code that Americans deserve, to close loopholes and special interests 
and lower tax rates so hardworking Americans can keep more of what they 
earn.
  Say ``no'' to the swamp. Say ``yes'' to a new Tax Code and a new era 
of American prosperity.
  I urge a ``no'' on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
Democratic motion, and I thank the Gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that your desperation for a political win is 
more important than the needs of our nation.
  For a few days, you will celebrate this holiday gift for the rich and 
wealthy. But in January, Mr. Speaker, the bill will come due.
  To cover the costs of these tax cuts, you will destroy the hopes and 
dreams of the American people, of working families, of the young and 
old, and of generations yet unborn.
  Make no mistake, Social Security, Medicare, and CHIP will be on the 
chopping block cuts.
  Bipartisan solutions for transportation, affordable housing, and 
student debt will be out of reach.
  And with this tax cut, every single federal program that matters to 
the American people will be dealt a crippling blow.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot 
justify robbing poor Peter to pay billionaire Paul.
  I urge each and every one of my colleagues to remember this moment, 
to remember this time, and to support this Democratic motion.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the House agreeing to 
conference with the Senate on their cruel and immoral $1.7 trillion tax 
giveaways to wealthy corporations and the top one percent, but as a 
member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong support of the 
Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees appointed by the House to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 1, the so-called ``Tax Cut and Jobs 
Act,'' which more accurately should be called the ``Republican Tax Scam 
Act.''
  The Motion to Instruct does two things: first, it directs House 
conferees to disagree with Section 11081 of the Senate amendment which 
would eliminate the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate by 
instructing conferees.
  Second, the Motion to Instruct would also oppose eliminating the 
current tax deduction for state and local property, income, and sales 
taxes by instructing house conferees to recede from Section 1303 of the 
House bill.
  Instead, we should junk this shameful legislation and start over in a 
bipartisan manner that provides relief to working and middle class 
families, does not increase the deficit, and ensures that the 
government has the resources needed to make the investments required to 
keep our country strong, safe, healthy, and economically competitive.
  H.R. 1, on the other hand, raises taxes on poor, working, and middle 
class families; explodes the deficit by adding an additional $2.2 
trillion over ten years; and will require an estimated $5.4 trillion 
cut in funding for the programs ordinary Americans depend on for health 
security, educational opportunity, and economic progress.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last several months we have witnessed and borne 
the brunt of several of the most powerful storms ever recorded, 
including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
  I remember so well that the President visited Texas and promised the 
people affected by Hurricane Harvey of his unwavering commitment to 
provide everything needed to recover.
  We need that promise kept now, and approval of this reckless and 
immoral tax plan will make it virtually impossible to keep the promise.
  Residents of Texas who are facing the long road to recovery need at 
least $61 billion for home flood mitigation, repair, replacement, and 
home buyouts.
  There are other states with pressing needs related to disaster 
recovery.
  My colleagues across the aisle and the President should understand 
that the Texas and Florida congressional delegations are in full 
agreement regarding the need to meet the disaster recovery needs of the 
states and territories.
  There are particular concerns for our seniors who survived the 
terrible storms that ravaged the Texas Coast, Florida, U.S. Virgin 
Islands and Puerto Rico because so many of them are alone, while trying 
to do the difficult and hard job of cleaning out their homes, or 
removing debris from their yards.
  That work is nowhere near done in my State of Texas.
  Thousands of families have no home because of the storm, and many 
more thousands are living in gutted out shells of structures they once 
called home and too many others are sleeping in cars.
  Houston's response to the immediate disaster was impressive and all-
encompassing for the size and complexity of the disaster caused by 
unprecedented flooding due to Hurricane Harvey.
  The efforts of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and the work of the 
Public Works Department, Police, and First Responders, as well as 
Federal and State agencies that were joined by citizen volunteers 
helped save thousands of lives.
  We have communities in Texas that are struggling to find the new 
normal that FEMA officials warned Texans would need to accept following 
the historic flood.
  The effort is being made difficult by a lack of appreciation by the 
Administration of the true cost of recovery for Texas, Florida, the 
U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
  FEMA has proven that it is excellent at disaster response, but is 
showing that they are not very good at recovery management for 
individuals and families.
  The Administration risks a shutdown over not adequately meeting the 
needs of hurricane impacted areas.

[[Page H9612]]

  Mr. Speaker, Americans are not fooled; they know trickle-down 
economics has never worked, and they see right through this phony tax 
plan and recognize it for the scam that it is.
  That is why Americans reject this Republican tax giveaway by an 
overwhelming 2:1 margin according to a poll released recently by 
Quinnipiac.
  Specifically, 61 percent think the Republican tax scam will benefit 
the wealthy the most; only 16 percent say the plan will reduce their 
taxes.
  59 percent think it a very bad idea to eliminate the deduction for 
state and local income taxes.
  Nearly half of respondents (49 percent) think it a bad idea to lower 
the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.
  This Republican tax plan is even more toxic to my constituents in the 
Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, as you may know, my constituents and others in Texas are 
still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane 
Harvey, the worst storm ever to make landfall in the continental United 
States.
  My constituents understand that it is important that the United 
States has a tax system that is fair, balanced, smart, and provides the 
resources and opportunities to allow all Americans to reach their 
potential.
  And by margins exceeding 90 percent, they reject:
  1. Any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts for wealthy 
corporations and the top 1 percent;
  2. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction;
  3. Eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes;
  4. Eliminating existing deductions for student loan interest or 
making taxable college endowment funds or college fellowships expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, the average annual tax cut for the top one-tenth of one 
percent is $320,000; for the top one percent it is $62,000, and for 
those earning $1 million a year it is $68,000.
  Nearly 25 percent of the tax cut goes to households in just the top 
one-tenth of one percent, who make at least $5 million a year (2027).
  While super-wealthy corporations and individuals are reaping 
windfalls, millions of middle-class and working families will see their 
taxes go up:
  1. 13 million households face a tax increase next year.
  2. 45 million households face a tax increase in 2027.
  3. 29 million households (21 percent) earning less than $100,000 a 
year see a tax increase.
  On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 
increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families 
struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.
  It is shocking, but not surprising, that under this Republican tax 
scam, the total value of tax cuts for just the top one percent is more 
than the entire tax cut for the lower 95 percent of earners.
  Put another way, those earning more than $912,000 a year will get 
more in tax cuts than 180 million households combined.
  The core of this Republican tax scheme is a massive tax cut from 35 
percent to 20 percent for corporations, but that is not the only way 
that the wealthy are rewarded.
  The massive tax cuts for corporations are permanent but temporary for 
working and middle-class families.
  Another immoral aspect of this terrible tax scam is that it abandons 
families that face natural disasters or high medical costs by repealing 
deductions for casualty losses and medical expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, in what universe does it make any sense to eliminate, as 
this bill would, a deduction for:
  1. teachers who purchase supplies for their classroom;
  2. moving expenses to take a new job and taxes employer-provided 
moving expenses; or
  3. dependent care assistance, making it harder for families to afford 
day care, nursery school, or care for aging parents?
  This Republican tax scam jeopardizes American innovation and 
competitiveness by eliminating the deduction for student loan interest, 
which affects 12 million borrowers, and cuts total education assistance 
by more than $64 billion.
  Under the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and the 
determined efforts of ordinary Americans, we pulled our way out from 
under the worst of the foreclosure crisis when the housing bubble burst 
in 2007.
  Inexplicably, Republicans are now championing a tax scheme that will 
make the homes of average Americans less valuable because deductions 
for mortgage interest and property taxes are much less valuable than 
under current law.
  A tax plan that reduces home values, as this one does, puts pressure 
on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, 
roads, and vital public resources.
  Mr. Speaker, the $5.4 trillion cuts in program investments that will 
be required to pay for this tax giveaway to wealthy corporations and 
individuals will fall most heavily on low-income families, students 
struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
  This tax scam is not a revenue policy adapted for the real world that 
real Americans live in but a fantasy resting on the monstrous belief 
that the wealthy have too little money and that poor, working, and 
middle-class families have too much.
  Congressional Republicans continue to cling to the fantasy belief 
that their tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves despite all 
precedent to the contrary and evidence that their tax scheme is 
projected by experts to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, in evaluating the merits of a taxing system, it is not 
enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.
  To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's 
present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the plan must also pass 
a ``moral test.''
  The Republican tax bill fails both of these standards.
  That is why I support the Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees, 
even though I strongly oppose the Motion to Go to Conference on H.R. 1, 
the ``Republican Tax Scam Act.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 233, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 654]

                               YEAS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     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
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     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
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     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
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway

[[Page H9613]]


     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Beatty
     Bridenstine
     Conyers
     DeSantis
     Flores
     Gutierrez
     Kennedy
     Pocan
     Quigley
     Renacci
     Ruppersberger
     Scott, Austin
     Walz

                              {time}  2054

  Mses. McSALLY and HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. MOORE, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, and Ms. SPEIER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees on H.R. 1:
  From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of the House 
bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Brady of Texas, Nunes, Roskam, Mmes. Black, Noem, 
Messrs. Neal, Levin, and Doggett.
  From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of 
section 20003 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Walden, Shimkus, and Ms. Castor of Florida.
  From the Committee on Natural Resources, for consideration of 
sections 20001 and 20002 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Bishop of Utah, Young of Alaska, and 
Grijalva.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________