[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.
____________________