[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 207 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H10189-H10200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, TAX CUTS 
 AND JOBS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3312, SYSTEMIC RISK 
      DESIGNATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 667

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2018. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit if applicable. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not 
     apply to the conference report.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3312) to amend 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     to specify when bank holding companies may be subject to 
     certain enhanced

[[Page H10190]]

     supervision, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Financial Services 
     now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-49, modified by the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the remainder 
     of the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     remainder of the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth 
     Congress for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The 
     Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my dear friend, who is the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk 
Designation Improvement Act of 2017; and the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and JOBS Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, and specifically the underlying conference 
report, is the reflection of a bicameral agreement between the United 
States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, whereby 
we took some of the best ideas from across not only our conference, but 
this country, and from our respective ideas to make a tax bill that 
would combine them for the best interests of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that what we are doing here today is 
that the Republican Party is relying upon the greatest system ever 
invented: the free enterprise system.
  The free enterprise system has brought the United States of America 
not only the greatest economic opportunities in the world, but it is a 
system of rule of law. It is a system of a Tax Code. It is a system of 
ideas that has made America the envy of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I also get politically what is happening. We are taking 
what the Democratic Party and President Obama did to raise taxes by $1 
trillion, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, 
and we are trashing that today.
  We are saying that the production that it made of 1.2 percent over 8 
years is unacceptable to the United States of America. It was 
unacceptable then, and we will not allow that to be the gauge that we 
will measure our success in the future.
  Secondly, we are also going to deal properly and fairly with the 
Affordable Care Act, a law that placed extensive burdens not only on 
people who did not want the healthcare bill that was placed forward, 
but placed a tremendous cost on the middle class of this country and 
the American people.

                              {time}  1030

  What we are doing today is bold. We are going to make the big deal 
the big deal the American people want and need: a stronger, brighter 
economic future.
  It is a progrowth bill that will overhaul our Tax Code and unleash 
our free enterprise system. It lowers tax rates on businesses of every 
size so job creators can focus on hiring workers, increasing paychecks 
and growth.
  Growth and competition are the keys to an expanding economy. More 
jobs and increased wages in my home of Dallas, Texas, have allowed 
Texas to lead the Nation not only in job creation, but to make us the 
envy of the world. We are now going to do that for the entire United 
States and help make back home for every Member of Congress competitive 
in the world market.
  With the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, the 
United States today has a broken Tax Code that has forced businesses to 
not only move their jobs and research overseas; it has forced us to be 
able to strand billions of dollars of economic advantage that should be 
in the United States.
  That changes today. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will stop and reverse 
that trend. It will encourage American companies to bring their jobs 
and their operations back to the United States by lowering corporate 
tax rates to be competitive anywhere in the world at 21 percent and 
encourages U.S. businesses to bring their foreign earnings home, 
unleashing trillions of dollars in our economy. That is the future that 
the Republican Party wants for the United States of America and the 
free enterprise system.
  The conference report also simplifies tax filing. It eliminates 
costly special interest tax breaks. It protects the abilities of small 
businesses to write off interest on loans and offers a first-ever 20 
percent tax deduction to businesses organized as S corps, partnerships, 
LLCs, and sole proprietorships. This will be a boom not only for the 
stock market, which we have seen since the day after the election, but 
we have seen a boom on Main Street as job creators and new small 
businesses are seeking to reinvest not only in their business and in 
their community, but for the opportunity to benefit workers in the 
United States of America.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a direct and immediate boost for middle-
income Americans who have been struggling--struggling for 8, now, 9 
years--to get a handle on not only their ability to work with a broken 
tax system, but the ability to work with their own local businesses to 
make sure that their city succeeds, also.
  It reduces the tax rate for low-income and middle-income Americans. 
It increases and extends the child tax credit to more families and, 
roughly, doubles the standard deduction. With this piece of legislation 
today, legislation for middle-income families will allow them to be a 
part of an economic growth model for years to come.
  We are proud of what we are doing and delighted that we offer this 
not only to the United States House of Representatives today, but to 
the American people to see the Republican answer for economic growth 
and development vitality for the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think America is pretty apprehensive this morning, 
certainly those who know that two American Presidents and one Governor 
of Kansas have tried trickle-down fairly recently and found it did not 
work at all and, indeed, caused great economic harm. But we are walking 
into trickle-down once again.
  I think there is a word that describes when you do the same thing 
over and over again expecting a different result--I won't use that 
word, but I suspect most of us know exactly what I am talking about--
particularly at this time when this economy was really booming, really 
doing well.
  I appreciate that there were pockets where people were not getting 
jobs, and this was pointed out by Richard Neal frequently last evening. 
We have such a skills gap that jobs are going unfilled in America, and 
that is what we really should be working on today.
  The fact is that corporations are awash with money. The stock market 
is booming, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. Why 
in

[[Page H10191]]

the world would we trifle with that to try a failed trickle-down policy 
again?
  Now, emergency procedures were used to bring the bill up before us 
today. Now, what is this urgent attention that nobody could have any 
amendments or anything, that it was an emergency?
  We are not reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
which a lot of people think is an emergency because it provides 
healthcare to more than 9 million children. We are not reauthorizing 
community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people; and, 
after killing Planned Parenthood--the money--that means a lot more 
people will need a community health center. We are not renewing the 
Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their 
education.
  Those three programs expired on September 30, but we are not 
considering them today. Instead, despite a record of 86 months of job 
growth--every single month for 86 months we have grown jobs--and an 
unemployment rate that remains steady, the majority is prioritizing tax 
cuts--not tax cuts for the middle class.
  Don't let anybody tell you that this is tax reform. It isn't. It is a 
moving around of rates, but very specifically geared toward helping the 
rich with nothing much for the middle class who work hard to make ends 
meet, but tax cuts for the wealthy. The middle class will see their 
money go directly to the rich.
  That is what the bill was designed to do. You can tell by who wrote 
it. There is not a single Democratic fingerprint or breath anywhere to 
be found. Instead, it was crafted by the lobbyists who virtually run 
Washington under the majority's leadership. Some swamp clearing.
  Consider this: there are 11,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, 
D.C. More than half of them--more than half of 11,000--reported working 
on the issues involving taxes during the first three quarters of this 
year. Each of the 20 organizations that hired the most lobbyists to 
work on tax issues have reported lobbying specifically on tax reform, 
covering the matters included in this bill.

  Now, this is the quote of all time. One lobbyist admitted to The New 
York Times that few Members actually had any influence on the final 
product. He said, ``You are dealing with 14 people instead of 535 
people,'' saying specifically, as much as possibly could be said, that 
the 535 people in the Congress representing the people of the United 
States didn't do a thing on this. They wrote it.
  The New York Times has reported that the travel industry lobbyists 
directly emailed those writing the bill to kill an amendment on tourism 
because a competitor who favored it has been critical of President 
Trump.
  Business lobbyists, after already securing a lower corporate tax rate 
in an early version of the bill, called the members of the majority and 
made it even more favorable to them. They secured the removal of the 
corporate alternative minimum tax, a provision designed for the very 
rich to get away with paying no taxes at all, and we know some people 
who have done that.
  The majority has been very clear about whom the bill is written for. 
One of the members of the majority, Congressman Chris Collins, said: 
``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me 
again.'''
  But, Mr. Speaker, what about the average American? What about workers 
and members of the middle class who can't write big campaign checks or 
who don't have an army of lawyers to scour the Tax Code on their 
behalf? Those are the people who are going to be forced to pay the 
price for providing the wealthy with these tax cuts.
  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is certainly a man who 
prefers business and knows a thing or two about running a business. He 
recently wrote this:
  ``Corporations are sitting on a record amount of cash reserves: 
nearly $2.3 trillion. That figure has been climbing steadily since the 
recession ended in 2009, and it is now double what it was in 2001. The 
reason CEOs''--this is an important point. ``The reason CEOs aren't 
investing more of their liquid assets has little to do with the tax 
rate. CEOs aren't waiting on a tax cut to `jump-start the economy'--a 
phrase of politicians who have never run a company--or to hand out 
raises. It is pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to 
significantly higher wages and growth, as Republicans have promised.''
  Now, that is not somebody who is an enemy of business, and he has 
called this bill a trillion-dollar blunder.
  This is really a remarkable time in the United States, knowing that 
we are on the brink of passing a bill that will adversely impact 
virtually every American except the rich. The majority has the votes, 
and there is not much Democrats can do to stop it.
  Let me say again, I am glad the Democrats are not involved in writing 
it, but it is an insult to the word ``reform'' to associate it with 
this bill.
  The American people know they are not getting what they were promised 
by the majority. We know the President campaigned mightily on doing 
away with carried interest, but it is still in the bill.
  The bill hurts the middle class, children, veterans, and the elderly 
by limiting or outright eliminating many of the deductions that they 
rely on.
  Under this bill, the personal exemption is eliminated, the mortgage 
interest deduction is limited, the State and local tax deduction is 
limited mightily, and the moving expense deduction for individuals has 
been eliminated. Even the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is 
eliminated. That will cause premiums to go up by 10 percent for those 
in the individual market, and 13 million people will lose their 
insurance--13 million.
  I want to pause on that because countless times I have stood here at 
this very spot when there were almost 60 bills to repeal and replace 
ObamaCare, so we have been able to insert this now in the tax bill, 
which will really hurt it. I have always wondered why there was such a 
rush to take healthcare away from persons, and I guess somehow that 
money--obviously, that Medicaid money--will pay for a lot of these tax 
cuts for the rich.
  All the tax cuts made for individuals will expire in 2025, but the 
tax cuts for corporations are permanent. That is not what we call 
reform. That keeps our Tax Code complicated by design. Wealthy families 
and big corporations can continue taking advantage of a system that 
they helped create.
  Broken promises are embedded throughout the legislation. For years, I 
have heard members of the majority come to the floor talking about the 
need to address the national debt. Apparently, that was little more 
than a talking point, because this bill explodes the deficit by $1.5 
trillion and it is completely unpaid for. Because of that, Federal law 
requires cuts to programs Americans depend on, including a $25 billion 
cut to Medicare.
  This isn't fear-mongering; this is fact. Speaker Ryan said just last 
week: ``We're going to have to get back next year.'' Next year we are 
going to say: Oh, my, we are going to have to do something about this 
spending and this debt, and so we will have to cut spending.
  What is he going to cut? The things he has always wanted to cut. He 
says: ``We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement 
reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.''
  We have known he has wanted to do that for a long time.
  So let me say this to the public watching today: When this majority 
speaks of reform, you should be very worried about your future. They 
pushed this scam under the guise of so-called reform, but it is simply 
a corporate giveaway. Soon they will be back here talking about 
reforming Social Security and Medicare to pay for what is going to 
happen here today.
  Let's call it what it really is: a systematic dismantling of the 
social contract. It will impact everyone from children to veterans to 
the disabled. It begins today with this bill to help the wealthy who 
haven't even asked for it.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who serves on the Financial 
Services Committee. Congressman Luetkemeyer, from St. Elizabeth, will 
talk about a piece of this bill that is from the Financial Services 
Committee.

[[Page H10192]]

  

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his steadfast 
support on so many important financial services issues.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to quickly lend my support to the tax 
package slated to be considered by the House today. This legislation 
will bring simplicity and fairness to the Tax Code. It will lower tax 
rates so individuals and job creators can invest in our communities and 
hire more workers. I also want to commend Chairman Brady and the House 
leadership for their incredible work on this issue.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, there is another bill 
slated to be considered today by this body, H.R. 3312, my Systemic Risk 
Designation Improvement Act. It will remove the ill-conceived approach 
taken in Dodd-Frank to designate bank holding companies as systemically 
important financial institutions, or SIFIs.
  Under the current regulatory framework, the designation of SIFIs is 
based solely on size. Any bank holding company with more than $50 
billion in assets is subject to enhanced regulatory supervision and a 
variety of special assessments.
  This approach fails to take into account differences in business 
models or risks posed to the financial system. As a former bank 
regulator, I can tell you this isn't a responsible basis for 
supervision, a fact that has been recognized by Federal Reserve Chair 
Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin, former Treasury Secretary 
Lew, and many Members of Congress. Even Barney Frank, the former 
Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee and author of 
Dodd-Frank, has said the $50 billion threshold is completely arbitrary 
and has negative implications on our economy.

                              {time}  1045

  This legislation closely ties the safeguards intended in the 
designation of a bank holding company with real risk to the system.
  My legislation would require the Federal Reserve to examine not just 
size, but also interconnectedness, the extent of readily available 
substitutes, global cross-jurisdictional activity, and complexity, 
criteria they already use in their own risk calculation analysis.
  An inefficient regulatory structure that does not reflect the reality 
of the U.S. banking system can have real economic consequences. We 
should no longer let the SIFI process lead to marketplace disruption or 
penalize companies based on size alone.
  It is time to take a more pragmatic approach to the SIFI designation 
process and, more generally, the punitive regulatory regime hitting 
financial institutions and their customers. It is time to actually 
manage risk and limit real threats to our financial system.
  This legislation received broad bipartisan support when it was 
reported by the Financial Services Committee with a vote of 47-12. That 
means nearly 80 percent of our committee members voted in favor of this 
legislation. I hope our House colleagues will join us in supporting 
H.R. 3312 later today. I thank the chairman for his leadership and help 
with this initiative.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the world's biggest corporate tax dodgers 
get the most out of this bill: a 40 percent reduction in the corporate 
tax rate and the right to bring back those profits they have hidden in 
Caribbean hideaways for pennies on the dollar.
  Another loophole will encourage jobs in America to be exported 
abroad, a long commute to work if the job is in Europe or in Asia.
  Of course, they have camouflaged this corporate tax giveaway with 
some changes for individuals.
  Who gets those?
  Well, it is a Who's Who of not you: the Trump family, real estate 
moguls, and their millionaire buddies.
  Disguised as a middle-class tax relief, this wretched bill targets 
the middle class with a dime of every dollar that is in the bill. What 
most Americans will really get is more debt and the coming cuts that 
these Republicans will insist on making to Medicare, Medicaid, and 
educational opportunity.
  Tax fraud is criminal, but passing this fraudulent tax bill 
apparently is not.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to set the record straight on tax 
reform.
  Opponents to this plan would have Members believe that tax reform is 
only a benefit for the wealthy or, hearing them today, a plot by the 
Trump family. That is simply partisan rhetoric.
  I have long said I would only vote for tax reform that helps families 
living paycheck to paycheck--families like the one I grew up in. My dad 
worked on the line at General Motors, and my mom worked for the 
Salvation Army. More money in their pockets from their paycheck every 
week would have made a huge difference. They worked hard to support 
their family and raise seven children. That little bit of money would 
have made a difference. Undoubtedly, now, it will make a difference for 
the American people.
  That is exactly what this plan does. It puts meaningful money back in 
the pockets of working families. A typical family is projected to save 
over $2,000 a year. That may not sound like much to some on the other 
side of the aisle, but, where I grew up, that is huge.
  For 57 percent of Americans who don't have enough money to cover a 
$500 emergency, that money matters. For businesses, it means 
investments, hiring, and better wages. I have talked to business owners 
across my district, and they have had the same message: cuts taxes so 
they can increase wages and hiring.
  Vic, a restaurant owner in my district, talked to me about tax cuts 
that would help his business. Vic said: We pay our taxes first, we pay 
our people second, we pay our bills third, and then if there's anything 
left over, we get paid.
  Our Tax Code shouldn't be a challenge or impediment for business 
owners like Vic.
  Currently, Americans pay more in taxes than they pay for food and 
clothing. It is time to fix this. This tax plan does that. This tax 
plan will help families and businesses across my district and across 
America, which is why I proudly support it, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), a conferee, I believe.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Here we are about 1 week before Christmas, and the GOP has proposed a 
tax bill that Ebenezer Scrooge would love. It is a big ``bah humbug'' 
for America and the families and communities we represent back home.
  Their bill will raise taxes on millions of American middle class 
families while showering tax breaks and new loopholes on the superrich 
and big corporations. It is fundamentally unfair. It does this with a 
massive increase to our national debt of about $2.3 trillion, in 
essence, mortgaging the future for our kids and grandkids and squeezing 
out our ability to invest in medical research and modern 
infrastructure.
  They admit they are going to look to cut and raise costs on families 
who depend on Medicaid and Medicare. It is not fair. In this bill, they 
even go so far as to rip health coverage away from 13 million Americans 
in another attack on the ACA. In Florida, 1.7 million of my neighbors 
rely on the healthcare.gov insurance pool for affordable coverage. They 
are, in essence, giving them a lump of coal for Christmas.
  We have got to defeat this bill. Vote ``no'' on this Scrooge tax 
bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the way, the gentlewoman would want to 
state that we are not taking this away. There will be a 1-year 
transition. So, I am sorry, but it will not be Ebenezer Scrooge at 
Christmas. It will be the bright lights of a big future that lies ahead 
for us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  When we are in this House, the people's House, I know sometimes the 
message goes back and forth. Unfortunately, this idea of identity 
politics is what we have to play all the time. Instead of talking to 
the American people, we talk past the American people,

[[Page H10193]]

and we try to make it so divisive that they can't see the facts.
  I would just tell my friends on the other side, as a child growing 
up, I think all of us were the same. We would sit down about this time 
of year, and we would write a letter to Santa. We would ask Santa Claus 
for everything we wanted. Then we would mail it off to the North Pole.
  Then we would come down on Christmas morning, and we would see that 
Christmas tree and all those gifts laid out. We never got everything we 
wanted, but we were sure thankful for everything we got.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is so critical. When we talk about debt, if 
I were to tell an investor: For every $1 that you invest, I can return 
$1.90 on it, they would be excited.
  Let me just explain something when we talk about American families. 
It is not Republican families, by the way, not Democrat families, or 
Libertarian families. I am talking about American families. A typical 
family of four earning $73,000 a year will see a cut in their taxes of 
$2,059. A single parent with one child earning $41,000 a year will see 
a tax reduction of $1,304.
  I would ask my friends, please do not be on the wrong side of 
history. You will have an opportunity today to do something that is 
great for America, to make America great again. We look at everything 
that is going on, and we decide that somehow, in this House, we must be 
divisive and not united. When we think that somehow giving people more 
of their own money back is the wrong policy, when we think that somehow 
giving tax relief to every single American is the wrong policy, when we 
think that the tone and tint of somebody's skin, the shape of their 
eye, where they worship, where they live, what they earn is the main 
issue, and we can divide them as a people, that is absolutely wrong. It 
is totally un-American.
  What is truly pro-American is making sure that every single American 
gets to keep more of her or his money that they earn in a day, and they 
don't have to give it to the government. Nothing could be more simple. 
Nothing could be more easy.
  I would ask all my friends to please, let's act in the best interest 
of America. Forget the identity politics. Look at what is good for 
those neighbors of yours, those friends of yours, and that family of 
yours, and let's decide where America is going to go.
  We have seen a dramatic rise in our economy since the last election. 
This tax cuts bill, this jobs bill, will allow this economy to take off 
where all boats will rise. Not just red boats or blue boats, but red, 
white, and blue boats. It will happen at the best time of the year, a 
time when people look to this House to do the right thing for the right 
reason. Good things happen when we do that.
  This is an incredible opportunity in the history of the country. The 
is an incredible opportunity to show the American people that we are 
not divided as a House. We are united. We are united in doing the right 
thing for them because it is the right thing, and good things will 
happen.
  I would like to wish all my friends on both sides of the aisle and 
all those folks at home a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays. On 
Christmas morning, I guarantee you, you may not get everything that you 
wish for, but you are going to be so thankful for everything you got.
  Let's pass this tax cut and jobs bill and make sure America moves 
forward. We have labored for too long behind the rest of the world. 
Individuals have more take-home pay, corporations will stay home. They 
will make investments in land, bricks, mortar, equipment, education, 
and in making our workers the best workers in the world and able to 
compete anywhere on any stage and win.
  We will not only just participate, we will dominate, and that will 
trickle down to every single American, not just red, white, and blue; 
as I said earlier, not just Republicans or Democrats, but every single 
American. What a wonderful gift for Christmas.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Kentucky native for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, my Republican colleagues will vote to approve a 
historically unpopular bill.
  The American people don't buy Republican claims that the bill will 
help middle class families. In fact, in several years, more than 83 
million middle class families will see a tax hike.
  The people see that Republicans have sold their souls and principles 
to give tax cuts to wealthy corporations and to pay back their 
billionaire donors. They know the Republicans have abandoned any claim 
to fiscal responsibility. After all, nonpartisan analyses conclude this 
bill will add more than $1 trillion to the debt.
  But the Republican leadership has a plan to make up the difference, 
and it is something else. They are already working on legislation to 
make massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs families 
need.
  This isn't tax reform. This isn't help for the middle class. It is a 
scam, it is fraud, and it will have dangerous, long-lasting 
consequences for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and to reject this scandalous 
Republican donor payback legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and his 
continued leadership.
  We are on the cusp of something truly historic that will make life 
better for millions of people across the United States. By reforming 
the Tax Code, we will be able to put more money in people's pockets and 
create a fair and simpler tax system.
  Under the current Tax Code, well-off individuals and big businesses 
can higher lobbyists and lawyers to help them find loopholes and 
special interest giveaways, all at the expense of working Americans.
  With our plan, the Tax Code will be simplified, loopholes will be 
closed, and the playing field will be leveled.
  I want to make one thing clear: if you are looking for a tax plan 
that benefits the elite, the well connected, and the 1 percent, then 
you need to look at the current Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going 
to great lengths to defend the current Tax Code that truly benefits the 
top 1 percent. For example, the Democratic leader has called the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act ``the end of the world.'' So, apparently, giving the 
hardworking people in this country a tax cut is, to her, 
``Armageddon.''
  Let's stop with all the doomsday political rhetoric, cut to the 
chase, and say what this bill really does:
  It cuts taxes on hardworking Americans and allows them to keep more 
money in their pockets;
  It supports American families by increasing the child tax credit and 
doubling the standard deduction;
  It grows the American economy by making the corporate Tax Code 
actually competitive with other industrialized countries;
  It benefits Main Street businesses in Alabama and across the country 
with a new 20 percent tax deduction for passthrough income;
  It will lead to greater economic growth, higher wages, and more jobs, 
which is exactly what the American people sent President Trump and the 
Republican Congress to Washington to do.

                              {time}  1100

  So let's save the political hyperbole for another day. Let's pass the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and let's give the American people a real 
Christmas present and put more money in their pockets.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to ask 
themselves: Have they ever seen a Republican big-time tax cut for the 
wealthy and big companies ever trickle down to them?
  If you look over the course of these things that they do every few 
years, all they do is concentrate wealth at the very top and take money 
out of the hands of working people. They starve government and make it 
more difficult for your government--which is of, by, and for the 
people--to help you with

[[Page H10194]]

disaster, with Social Security, with Medicaid, with Medicare, or with 
any kind of program that you need. It just starves the government of 
its ability to make your life better.
  But, do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
  There is another thing about this particular tax bill. They have been 
studying it, and there is going to be one tremendous beneficiary of 
this tax bill. It is going to be Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo, which will 
see its corporate tax rate drop down to 21 percent from the 35 percent 
it is now is going to make, on average, a 13 percent increase in 
earnings per share.
  Do you remember that big company that opened up a bunch of accounts 
people didn't need and sold people insurance they didn't need?
  They will be doing better. American families will be doing worse.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this tax bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions 
for his leadership and for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to make history this week by delivering a 
tax cut to families at every income level.
  The math clearly shows that the average family of four, making the 
country's median income of $73,000, will receive a $2,000 tax cut.
  Yet many of my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to say 
this bill is going to raise taxes on millions of middle class families. 
That is just not true, unless you are referring to 2025, when these tax 
cuts expire and we go back to the status quo.
  Why is there an expiration date?
  Because many of the very same people, using this as a talking point 
against this bill, are the reason they sunset. If we could get 60 votes 
in the Senate, requiring just a few of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to work with us, we could make this tax cut for middle class 
families permanent right now. They have chosen not to work with us.
  I will be giving my friends on the other side of the aisle another 
chance to support tax cuts for hardworking families in their district. 
I will be introducing a bill to make the individual tax cuts permanent.
  I am not sure there is anyone who truly believes that a future 
Congress would let them expire, given the fact that we have extended 
the Bush tax cuts in the past.
  Nonetheless, I am introducing this bill to ensure these tax cuts will 
be in place for middle class families this year, and to make sure they 
are here to stay.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope each and every one of my colleagues will sign on 
as a cosponsor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her tremendous leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill, which really is the greatest tax scam in America's 
history. It is cruel and it is coldhearted.
  It steals from the hard-earned paychecks of low- and middle-income 
families; lines the pockets of millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy 
corporations; and, yes, it makes it easier for corporations to ship 
jobs overseas.
  Now, for weeks, Republicans have been selling the pipe dream that tax 
cuts for the rich will somehow trickle down and benefit the majority of 
Americans. That is so far from the truth.
  Just yesterday, the Tax Policy Center revealed that 83 percent of the 
tax breaks in this bill go to the top 1 percent.
  What is worse, 86 million middle-income households will face tax 
hikes and 13 million Americans will lose healthcare coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, constituents in my congressional district are afraid of 
their futures because this tax scam is going to severely devastate 
families in California. Nearly 2 million Californians stand to lose 
their State and local deductions if Republicans succeed.
  This is truly a slap in the face to the American people. Republicans 
have already and have always, yes, made it clear that this tax scam is 
a Trojan horse for Republicans to take an axe to Medicare, Social 
Security, and programs that lift people out of poverty. But the public 
is not going to let them get away with this. They will remember who is 
shattering their lives.
  This bill is ruthless. It makes clear that Republicans only value the 
lives of the wealthy and their donors. That is whose side they are on.
  Well, Democrats are on the side of middle- and low-income families 
who are working hard just to make ends meet, to take care of their 
children, to make better wages, and who are fighting for a better 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, we should oppose this bill and this rule. It is really a 
raw deal for the American people. The public knows whose side we are 
on, and the public knows whose side that the Republicans are on.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, advise the 
gentlewoman that, to balance out the time, I am going to allow her to 
have the next couple of speakers so that we can equal the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the final version of the 
Republican tax bill, which I cannot support.
  This bill was flawed from the start. First of all, it was never 
deficit neutral and there was never a bipartisan negotiation. This is a 
Republican-only bill, and it was developed without any input at all 
from Democrats because they never sought our input at all.
  My Republican colleagues say they would like to jump-start the 
economy. Well, we can do just that by providing more tax cuts to 
working class families whose paychecks are already stretched far too 
thin and who would reinvest that money in the local economy.
  Instead, this bill provides them with crumbs, and temporary crumbs at 
that.
  Under this plan, corporate cuts, though, will be permanent. With this 
bill, we will see an entirely different, more expensive, individual Tax 
Code in 2025, when the middle class tax cuts expire.
  This bill also balloons the national debt, make no mistake about it. 
It repeals a critical healthcare provision that will result in 13 
million Americans becoming uninsured.
  Now, these days, I hear a lot about accountability and encouraging 
competitiveness for the American worker, which I support. But this 
bill, with its novel loopholes and flawed trickle-down philosophy, does 
neither. It is a wasted opportunity.
  I believe that it is not too late, but the way this bill is written, 
I cannot support it. This was written for corporations and the wealthy 
1 percent in this country. It was not written for a strong middle 
class. We can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, a bill that is done in the dark of 
night, in the midst of a crisis like the lack of Perkins funding for 
our students, the lack of funding for CHIP and for healthcare for 
millions of Americans--yet our friends on the other side go without 
shame in passing the GOP tax scam bill.
  In the Houston Chronicle, they aptly put winners and losers, and they 
aptly put at the top of the winners The Trump Organization. This is a 
Christmas gift for the Trump family--no one else--with huge cuts to the 
uninsured, to commuters, and to homeowners in high-tax States. This is 
not a fair distribution of funds, and it certainly is going to impact 
those who are still suffering from hurricanes all over the Nation.
  So I ask the question: Why the rush? Why the rush to give tax cuts to 
the top 1 percent, and increasing taxes on millions of middle class 
Americans, to pay for a permanent tax?
  The American people have it right: a permanent tax cut for the rich. 
This is the worst catastrophic bill that has ever been passed by the 
Members of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. It is 
a shame.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H10195]]

  

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  We do need tax reform. We need tax reform that we all described in 
the beginning as something that would help the middle class, that would 
simplify taxes, and would be revenue neutral. This bill, sometimes 
described by its authors as doing those things, accomplishes none of 
those things.
  Now, first of all, for the middle class, wages have been stagnant. 
The jobs people are getting aren't paying the bills. We know the 
biggest challenge we face is increasing investment, increasing wages, 
and increasing security.
  There are some benefits in this bill for the middle class, but let's 
get real. Those benefits are tiny and they are temporary.
  If you are a Vermont family, if you are lucky--we get hit with the 
SALT deduction loss--you might make a couple hundred bucks.
  But at what price?
  Once these benefits expire, 83 percent of the benefits of the 
individual tax rate goes to the top 1 percent.
  At what price?
  $2 trillion added to the deficit.
  Let me tell you this: Vermont families, hard-earning families, 
working families, they would like a tax cut, but not one that their 
children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. That is 
unconscionable.
  What about these corporate tax cuts?
  We want simplification, so we are competitive. There is a 40 percent 
reduction for multinational corporations.
  But, in this bill, is there any corresponding requirement that they 
start reinvesting in America?
  Exactly the opposite.
  There is a lower tax rate for companies that invest abroad, send jobs 
abroad, rather than invest at home. That is outrageous.
  And what happens because of this deficit?
  Medicare is going to be cut directly as a result of this tax bill. 
The infrastructure plan we all want is evaporating.
  Defeat this rule and defeat this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few Members that was here 
back in 1986 when we had the last major tax cut before this body. The 
President was Ronald Reagan and the Speaker of the House was Tip 
O'Neill. They worked together on a bipartisan basis to cut taxes across 
the board. The result was the economic growth of the late 1980s and the 
early 1990s, up until the early 2000s, when we had 9/11. It is one of 
the best votes that I have ever taken as a Member of this body.

  Well, now we are here on another major tax bill. The problem this 
time around is that there is no bipartisanship.
  Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
  It is not because the Republicans don't want to be bipartisan. It is 
because the Democratic leadership this time around has just said no.
  This tax bill is a good bill.
  The distinguished gentleman from Vermont who just spoke is correct in 
that it is not revenue neutral. But, Mr. Speaker, revenues are at an 
all-time high. We are going to raise more money this year than we have 
ever raised before at the Federal level. Let me repeat that: raise more 
money than we have ever raised before at the Federal level.
  Isn't it time to give hardworking Americans a little of that money 
back?
  That is what this bill does. It cuts rates for every working 
American. Let me repeat that: it cuts rates for every working American.
  No matter what your tax rate is today, under this bill, it is going 
to be lower if you are an individual. If you are a corporation, it is 
going to be lower. If you are one of these passthroughs, it is going to 
be lower.
  Every American who is paying taxes today is going to pay less taxes 
starting January 1, 2018. That is a good deal. That is a good deal. We 
are cutting taxes across the board for every working American.
  We repeal the individual mandate under ObamaCare.

                              {time}  1115

  Unfortunately, it doesn't kick in until 2019, but we still repeal 
that.
  This is a good bill. It is a historic bill. It is a bill that 
everybody in this Chamber will benefit from, regardless of whether you 
vote for it or vote against it. So when the time comes this afternoon 
to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' I am voting ``yes'' for America. I am voting 
``yes'' for America's future. I am voting ``yes'' for every working 
American who is paying taxes today. Let's put more money back in their 
pocket. Let's double the rate of growth for the economy. Let's put more 
Americans at work. Let's show some faith in the American people, vote 
``yes.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the biggest economic challenge of our time 
is that too many people are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live 
on. Wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Too many families 
struggle today to make ends meet. Some have two or three jobs. They 
can't afford healthcare. They can't afford--some can't afford to put 
food on the table. They don't take vacations, and their retirement is 
in jeopardy.
  But it is the big corporations, the millionaires and the 
billionaires, who are writing the rules to make government work for 
them, and it is the Republicans who are their comrades in arms who are 
rigging the game against the middle class.
  Senator Orrin Hatch, who wrote this bill, said: ``I have a rough time 
wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help 
people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the 
Federal Government to do everything.''
  This is the ugly truth of this Republican tax bill. And I say to 
Senator Hatch: ``The Federal Government has taken good care of you. It 
is about the great people of this Nation that we are not taking care 
of.''
  That is what this vote is about. This is where their values are. They 
are on display. The final bill is even worse than we feared. It lowers 
the tax rate for the wealthiest people even more. It repeals a key 
element of the Affordable Care Act, kicking 13 million people off their 
insurance, raising premiums by 10 percent.
  Don't let them fool you on the child tax credit. It is a shameful 
proposal. It shuts out military families, rural families, large 
families, minimum wage workers, those with the youngest children. If 
you make $400,000 a year, you get a $4,000 child tax credit. If you 
make $14,500 a year, you get $75. Who are they fooling with this bill?
  And you know what, my colleague, just a minute ago, said: Yes, those 
in this Chamber will benefit. You bet.
  We are eligible for the child tax credit, but low-income families are 
not. This bill fails the middle class. It benefits the richest 1 
percent. Vote against it as I will.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), the Rules Committee designee to 
the Budget Committee and the gentleman who sits with esteem on the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time. We were in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, and we 
were having this same kind of conversation. We were going through the 
list one by one by one of all the families and how folks were going to 
benefit, about the children and graduate students, folks facing medical 
challenges. We went through one by one by one and talked about all the 
folks who were going to benefit from this great tax cut, and it was 
powerful.
  But I was reminded, Mr. Speaker, that when we started this 
conversation, it wasn't even a tax cut conversation. It was an economic 
growth conversation, Mr. Speaker. It was an economic growth 
conversation. Where we have ended up is there are going to be tax 
benefits for every single working family in the country, but where we 
started was how do we get those wages for working families up? How do 
we get job creation up? How do we get America growing, not at these 
stagnant rates of Obama years, but back at powerful rates as we saw in 
the Bush years,

[[Page H10196]]

as we saw in the Clinton years, as we saw in the Reagan years? That was 
the conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we had historically normal economic growth--not 
fantastic economic growth--historically normal economic growth, we 
would have a balanced budget in this country today. There is an 
economic consequence of economic failure. What we have done in this 
bill, Mr. Speaker, by allowing businesses to expense their investment, 
allows them to make their employees more productive on day one. That is 
going to have a powerful impact, not just on employee wages, Mr. 
Speaker, but on economic growth across the entire country.
  This bill is not about should we pay taxes. We must. This bill is 
about how we pay taxes. Can we do it better? Does America need to be 
the worst in the world? Or can we be first in the world?
  We are answering that question today. We are answering that question 
today. And with every single vote a Member in this Chamber casts, it is 
not about is everything in this bill exactly the way you would have 
crafted it. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, for me, it is not. The question 
is: Does this bill move us in a direction of competitiveness across the 
globe? It does. The question is: Does this bill focus on wages and 
growing those wages? It does. The question is: In this opportunity that 
we have, did we take it or did we waste it?
  We haven't answered that question yet, Mr. Speaker, but I believe 
that later on today we will. We are going to answer in the affirmative. 
Give us a chance. Should it have taken us 31 years to get to this 
place? It should not. Can we make a difference together today for the 
country? Yes, we can. It will be a lasting difference. It will be a 
powerful difference. It is going to be one of the proudest votes I have 
had an opportunity to take in this Chamber, and I appreciate the 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been the most awful process. Mr. Barton wanted 
to know why the Democrats weren't involved. We weren't involved in any 
of it, for heaven's sake. We almost didn't get to see a copy of what 
they had.
  But I think the debate we have had here today must be very similar to 
the one we had in the Reagan administration. And David Stockman, who 
talked Ronald Reagan into trickle down, he says today it didn't work. 
It didn't work then. It didn't work for President Bush. It didn't work 
for the Governor from Kansas, whose name escapes me for the moment. 
Very recently, it didn't work, and it isn't going to work this time.
  So I am really appalled that we are doing it. But I have to say that 
this was the worst process that any of us have ever been through. We 
operated on Thomas Jefferson's manual in the Rules Committee. We didn't 
even come close.
  Mr. Speaker, let me speak on the PQ. We must protect middle class 
families against the disastrous Republican tax plan, and if we defeat 
the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will 
prohibit any legislation from being considered on the floor that limits 
or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA's 
individual mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member on the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York. You know, I 
have been here a long time now, and I have to say: This is one of the 
worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen; one of the worst 
processes I have ever seen. You know, when you were a kid, and you went 
to high school and college, and you learned how a bill becomes a law, 
well, take that and throw it out because the Republican leadership here 
doesn't want to work with Democrats.
  The reason no Democrats are working with you is you shut us out. You 
won't let us have any input. You won't do anything with us, and this is 
not the way to govern, absolutely not. You know, someone near and dear 
to me once said: The Republican Party is the party of the rich person, 
and the Democratic Party is the party of the working person.
  If that was ever true, it certainly is true today. Rich people do 
really, really well. Middle class and the poor people don't do well at 
all. In fact, the corporate tax breaks last for years and years and 
years, and the other tax breaks for the middle class expire in 5 years. 
This helps the rich; it hurts the poor; it helps the middle class.
  Even Ronald Reagan tried to be bipartisan and have Democrats work 
with him. And whatever happened to my friends on the Republican side, 
lectures about fiscal responsibility? This blows a hole in the budget. 
It is irresponsible. My State of New York, which is a donor State, is 
getting screwed. That is all I can say.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman 
that we are through with our speakers, that I will be closing, so I ask 
that she go ahead and consume her time.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
rise in strong hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will come to their senses and defeat this job-killing bill that will 
explode the deficit and hurt working people.
  It is important to note 83 percent of the benefits of the cuts in 
this bill go to the top 1 percent; 86 million hardworking middle class 
families will actually see a tax increase. Of course, we need to reform 
our Tax Code, but we need to do it in a way that raises wages, produces 
good-paying jobs, and makes sure the people have a brighter future.
  This does just the opposite. It ransacks Medicare and Medicaid. It 
creates an unsustainable burden for the next generation, and it is 
very, very important to recognize it is not going to create jobs. This 
is trickle-down economics. Let everyone at the top hold on to all of 
their money, and it will trickle down to the rest of us.
  It doesn't work. This is a failed economic policy. This does not 
support strengthening the middle class. We need to defeat this bill and 
reform our Tax Code in a way that will really promote job growth, that 
will raise wages, that will ensure working families can get ahead. 
There are millions of Americans tonight who will go to bed worrying 
about how they are going to take care of their family; how they are 
going to make ends meet. This bill will make that problem worse. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Members of the majority have lined up today to tell 
the American people how great this bill is. If that is true, why were 
they afraid of holding a single hearing or listening to a single 
outside expert?
  The 1986 tax bill had over 30 hearings and 430 witnesses and took 
well over a year; this one about three 3 months--written, apparently, 
by lobbyists. There wasn't a single hearing held on the text of this 
bill, not one. It was jammed through the Ways and Means Committee where 
our amendments, the Democrats', were blocked.

  Democratic Members had under an hour to review the final text before 
voting. It was rushed to the Rules Committee a day earlier than 
announced with only 4 hours' notice, so nobody had any chance to read, 
and the majority there blocked 140 bipartisan amendments.
  This has been a secretive process on both sides of the Capitol. 
Senators received the text of the final bill also within an hour of the 
vote. The nearly 500-page bill in the Senate was riddled with errors, 
last-minute edits, and illegible handwritten changes in the margins. 
There was a single meeting of a conference committee between the House 
and Senate. Members there were

[[Page H10197]]

prohibited from offering amendments or even seeing the negotiated text.
  Imagine that, you couldn't even see what they were supposed to vote 
on. The Senators and Representatives sat around the table for show 
while the press reported that the deal, even before the meeting had 
started, had already been reached. The Democrats had no say at all.
  House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady says he is proud of this 
process, but it will take a separate bill just to correct some of the 
errors here. And there is no reason to believe he would include 
Democrats in that process either. It would be another partisan effort.
  Let me remind everyone watching that we used emergency procedures to 
meet this onerous bill. In this Congress, disaster relief is not an 
emergency. Isn't that amazing? Funding CHIP and community health 
centers is not an emergency. Disaster funding is not an emergency. But 
rushing these tax cuts to the wealthiest among us is an emergency.
  This bill, which has no deadline, is their top priority, while real 
emergencies are being ignored, and it is shameful. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the previous question on the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, and really each of the members of the 
Rules Committee for their diligence in working yesterday for a long 
period of time.
  As the Rules Committee met last night, not only to consider this, but 
really to offer full and open debate, an opportunity was given for the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to come and speak representing 
the Democratic Party; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), to come 
and represent the Ways and Means Committee; and the distinguished 
gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee, to come and thoughtfully articulate not only 
the ideas behind this bill but what we are going to do.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, it is true that what we are doing is taking what was 
done by President Obama and a Democratic majority in the House and the 
Senate that raised taxes a trillion dollars, that, in 2008, 2009, 2010, 
and 2011, really raided the American people by raising taxes on them, 
by causing an economic downturn, a GDP rate of 1.2 percent--an assault 
on not just the taxpayer, but on the free enterprise system.
  It is true that we promised this last election, through the election 
of Donald Trump, to Make America Great Again. Part of making America 
great again means making Americans great again also, making Americans 
not only proud of their country, but giving them an economic 
opportunity, and that is what the Republican Party is doing here.
  We have heard not only from Mike Kelly, Congressman Kelly, who spoke 
about making America better, making the free enterprise system better, 
we heard from Congressman Woodall about being in 24th place, which is 
what America is, 24th in the world in doing business in a friendly 
environment.
  We cannot survive in 24th place--24th place--by keeping the current 
Tax Code we have, where over and over and over we see not only 
companies moving to other locations within the United States of 
America, but moving offshore, stranding dollars, and jobs going with 
that.
  What we are attempting to do in this bill is to make America number 
one, make America and the American worker number one again. We are 
going to make the big deal the big deal for people wherever you live in 
the United States. We are going to offer an opportunity for you to not 
only be taxed less, but that business that is in your city, your State 
that proudly they represent their hometown, they will have the 
opportunity to now be competitive.
  Forget this, ``Oh, Republicans want to move jobs offshore.'' That is 
what we are sick and tired of hearing. We are sick and tired of hearing 
that jobs and investments go overseas.
  They are coming back to America because this places America, instead 
of being the bottom wrung in terms of taxes, as the highest in the 
world. We are going to go to where we are the most competitive, where 
the American worker will stand a chance to stamp ``Made in America'' on 
those items that they want, made from my hometown, the pride of 
authorship of the middle class of this country, pride of authorship of 
knowing not just is my country going to get better, but my community 
and I will be better.
  It is about financial responsibility, but it is also about the 
integrity of the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is 
the greatest economic system in the history of the world. It will 
continue to produce great and better things for so many people.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party tried to kill the free 
enterprise system when they came after the free enterprise system. We 
knew it and we saw it, and the world saw it, too. 1.2 percent GDP 
growth as opposed to, now, with a new viewpoint about making America 
great, we have not only doubled GDP, but we have added, net, 1 million 
jobs. If the summer had not produced the storms it had, no telling what 
our job growth would be.
  This is what lies ahead, and this is what this Republican bill does. 
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill on this conference report.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
rise in strong and unyielding opposition to the rule and the Conference 
Report to H.R. 1, the so-called ``Tax Cut and Jobs Act,'' which more 
accurately should be called the ``Republican Tax Scam Act.''
  There are four reasons why I oppose this cruel and immoral $1.7 
trillion tax giveaway to wealthy corporations:
  1. The GOP tax scam raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class 
households and distributes the largest tax cuts to those in the top 1 
percent causing $1.7 trillion to be added to the debt;
  2. It eliminates or reduces tax benefits that directly benefit the 
middle class at every stage of life;
  3. It results in 13 million fewer Americans with health insurance 
coverage; and
  4. And it adds over $2 trillion dollars to deficit spending, which 
triggers statutory PAYGO's automatic spending cuts to mandatory 
programs such as Medicare, which along would see a $25 billion cut.
  Instead of doing tax reform the Republicans have found new ways for 
the wealthy who use tax accountants and lawyers to further game the tax 
payer system by adding new loop holes that are only for the 
corporations and the wealthy.
  Corporations receive a 14 percentage point reduction in their 
statutory tax rate, from 35 percent to 21 percent, the largest one-time 
rate reduction in U.S. history.
  Republicans designed this tax scam to benefit the wealthiest in our 
country and now they are working as hard as possible to make sure 
Americans are too busy looking the other way to notice.
  I have to tell them that it is too late, the American public sees 
what you are doing and they are not going to have any of it.
  The Republican Tax Scam doubles the dollar amount at which the estate 
tax, currently affecting only the wealthiest 2 in 100 families.
  It lifts the level at which the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would 
kick in, while dropping the top tax rate from the current 39.6 percent 
to 37 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, where are the promises made to working Americans to give 
them a break.
  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.
  What people may not understand is they will not have to wait until 
2027 to see the pain and misery that this tax cut will cause.
  Congress has established mechanisms in rules that require pay-fors 
when budget deficit spending reaching astronomical levels, like what we 
have in this bill's wholesale giveaway of taxpayer money to 
Corporations and the wealth--it is called PAYGO.
  The PAYGO compels new spending or tax changes not to add to the 
federal debt.
  PAYGO requires that new spending must either be ``budget neutral'' or 
offset with cuts to existing programs.
  So the Tax cut that corporations will be getting today, will cost the 
American workers dearly in next year when the Budget Committee must 
draft a budget that will have to slash domestic programs to pay for 
these cuts.
  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.

[[Page H10198]]

  Two weeks ago, nearly 8,000 of them took time out of their busy 
schedules to join me in a tele-town hall to discuss the tax scheme that 
has been rushed to the floor for a vote by the Republican leadership in 
the hope of passing it before the American people learn its insidious 
details.
  My constituents understand and let me know that they believe 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, my constituents, and Americans across the country, 
oppose this unfair Republican tax giveaway because nearly half of the 
$1.7 trillion tax cut goes to just the top one percent.
  In fact, 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 $l00,000 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 20 percent 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, an estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state 
and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.
  But this is not the end of the bad news that will be delivered were 
this tax scam to become law, not by a long shot.
  The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions 
of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and 
claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions 
were claimed in the Lone Star State.
  Equally terrible is that this Republican tax scam drastically reduces 
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million 
low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an 
average credit of $2,689.
  The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, 
including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.
  So to achieve their goal of giving more and more to the haves and the 
``have mores,'' our Republican friends are willing to betray seniors, 
children, the most vulnerable and needy, and working and middle-class 
families.
  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.
  America will not be made great by financing a $1.7 trillion tax cut 
for the rich by stealing $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, 
abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of 
realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or 
disinvesting in the working families.
  America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, 
interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific 
research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy 
just to pay for a tax cut to corporations and individuals who do not 
even need it.
  Mr. Speaker, the tax scheme presented here by Republicans is not a 
plan but a scam that represents a betrayal of our values as a nation.
  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.
  Our Republican friends 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.
  I strongly oppose the Conference Report to H.R. 1, the ``Republican 
Tax Scam Act,'' and urge all Members to join me in voting against this 
reckless, cruel, and heartless proposal that will do nothing to improve 
the lives or well-being of middle and working class families, and the 
poor and vulnerable `caught in the tentacles of circumstance.'
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 667 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

     ``SEC. 5. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES 
                   TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING 
                   OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or 
     conference report that repeals or limits the State and Local 
     Tax Deduction (26 U.S.C. Sec. 164).
       (b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect to the rule or order, 
     as applicable. The question of consideration shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point 
     of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall 
     otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one 
     that the House adjourn.''

     ``SEC. 6. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT REPEALS 
                   THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE UNDER THE PATIENT 
                   PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or 
     conference report that repeals or limits the individual 
     mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (26 U.S.C. Sec. 500A). (b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not 
     be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (a). 
     As disposition of a point of order under this subsection, the 
     Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to 
     the rule or order, as applicable. The question of 
     consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
     initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.''

[[Page H10199]]

     
                                  ____
        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
  Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4254.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 688]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     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
     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
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     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)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bridenstine
     Buchanan
     Clarke (NY)
     Davidson
     Davis, Danny
     Hudson
     Kennedy
     Pocan
     Richmond
     Scott (VA)
     Smith (TX

                              {time}  1156

  Mr. GOTTHEIMER and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

[[Page H10200]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 193, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 689]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     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
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (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

                               NOES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     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
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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
     Massie
     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)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bridenstine
     Clarke (NY)
     Hudson
     Kennedy
     Poca


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1205

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________