[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H10252-H10261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1, TAX CUTS AND
JOBS ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 668 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 668
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table 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,
with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the
House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or
his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as
read. The motion shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
adoption without intervening motion. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI
shall not apply to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). 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 friend, 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 this morning in support of this
rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1, an act to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2018, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act.
Mr. Speaker, last evening, the Senate, on a vote of 51-48, passed the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which I believe is in the interest of the
American people.
This is a bold, progrowth plan that will overhaul our Tax Code and
unleash the free enterprise system. It lowers tax rates on businesses
of all sizes so that job creators can focus more on bringing not only
more work to their workers, but also hiring more workers, increasing
paychecks, and growing a competitive marketplace all around the world.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to expand our economy, and there is
nothing more important for any Member of this body than to know that
the things that are happening in their own local communities are about
the ability for people, whether they are just graduating from high
school, whether they are graduating from a technical school, whether
they are graduating from college, or whether they are looking for a
second job or a longer career, to be successful in the marketplace in
their own area, in their own home--not having to move somewhere to find
a job, but in their own community. That is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to increase wages for every single community across
this country. My home of Dallas, Texas, has been home to so many people
who have moved there as a result of the, really, unlimited
opportunities that we see right now in Texas, and that comes because
Texas has found itself to be their home because so many other companies
have literally been run out of their States because of high taxes--high
taxes that are placed on those companies and the employees to where it
makes living and being competitive more difficult.
During consideration of this legislation in the Senate, a few,
relatively small provisions were removed through points of order in the
Senate under what is called the Byrd rule, a parliamentary tool used
during reconciliation.
The first change made by the Senate under the Byrd rule strikes the
language that allowed 529 accounts to be used for homeschool expenses.
The second change modifies a provision that imposes an excise tax on
the investment income of certain educational institutions. The change
strikes a reference to ``tuition-paying'' students, making the
exception to the excise tax available only if the institution has less
than 500 students or if 50 percent or less of the students are located
in the United States.
[[Page H10253]]
A third small change simply strikes the short title.
Mr. Speaker, all of these provisions were included in the underlying
bill as it first passed the Senate and came to the House and passed.
However, at the time that this was done, there were no parliamentary
points of order which were raised, which were later done.
Mr. Speaker, these minor changes will allow us to advance exactly the
same discussion that we had in this body, exactly the same discussion
that we have had with the American people, exactly the things that we
have talked about up in the Rules Committee and across this country, as
Republicans have talked about the importance of the status quo tax laws
that we presently have--moved so many companies overseas, moved jobs
overseas, and is not encouraging American companies to be competitive
because America, when combined with State and local taxes and Federal
taxes, is among the highest in the world, which means that American
business finds itself in a competitive marketplace, may be a great
product, but, on price, we are not as competitive.
This will allow America to achieve the greatness that it needs for a
great people who want and need to be great, also.
This legislation is about making sure that the rising worker, whether
they are brand-new in the marketplace or whether they are an
entrepreneur, or a mother or a father out in the marketplace looking
for a job, will find the ability to be successful.
The United States is already the best place in the world to live. We
are an incubator always for new ideas and small business, but we are
now going to be able to celebrate that to make it easier. We are taking
the Tax Code, instead of being the highest taxed Nation in the world,
to be one of the lowest. It is going to mean great things for the
American people, the American worker, and, most of all, for people who
believe that we want America to be great again.
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 my colleague for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were here. Does it not?
Mr. Speaker, we are 5 days away from Christmas, but it feels like
Groundhog Day. Less than 24 hours ago, the majority stood in the
Chamber and passed its partisan bill to provide tax cuts for
millionaires, billionaires, and one President.
Speaker Ryan called it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but,
apparently, by a twist of fate, he is getting that great opportunity
again today, much sooner, I am sure, than he anticipated, because we
are taking the bill up again this morning.
Maybe in the mad dash to provide massive tax breaks for corporations
and the 1 percent, the majority failed to do the due diligence and
properly vet the bill.
We found out, after it passed, that several of its provisions
violated the Byrd rule in the Senate. Now, everybody knows about the
Byrd rule in the Senate, and I don't understand why this was not found
in the conference that was held for maybe 30 minutes.
This is the rule that prohibits the Senate from considering
extraneous matters as part of a reconciliation bill.
After passing the House, provisions in this bill governing 529
college savings accounts and exempting certain universities from an
excise tax were ruled out of order by the Senate Parliamentarian. The
bill was so rushed that even the title of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act, was found to be a violation. Let me repeat that. The very first
words of the bill didn't pass muster with a nonpartisan rule keeper in
the Senate. Imagine what other areas we have yet to discover.
This is a consequence of a process that was nothing short of an
abomination. There were zero hearings on the text of this bill. Not a
single expert was called in to give his or her experience. It got the
votes to pass only after a series of closed-door, backroom dealings,
and a conference committee between the House and Senate Republicans.
Well, I think there were some Democrats there, but they tell me that
none of them signed the conference report. The Senate was such a sham
that an agreement was reached before the first public meeting ever took
place.
Now, I know this is not the last time, Mr. Speaker, we will meet here
to try to fix this bill. Mark my words, we will be back here next year
to make more so-called technical fixes because of this hasty
consideration.
The majority is rushing to pass a bill that is historically
unpopular, clearly deeply flawed, and we will be forced to clean up its
impacts and unintended consequences for many years to come.
I think we have all got a second opportunity here, and I would wish
that my friends, to whom I only wish well, would grab up all their
papers and run for the door and forget about this tax bill altogether.
But I know that that wish will not come true.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. She
has, as the Rules Committee has, taken a lot of time on this bill--we
have spent hours not only discussing and debating the effects of the
bill, what the bill is about, why we would do it--but most of all, her
abiding ability to stand up and represent her party in their context,
and I respect that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues from the other
side of the aisle talk about the 1 percent, the people at the top of
America.
Let me tell you who benefits from the status quo of our Tax Code. It
is the 1 percent. They can afford the lawyers, the accountants, and the
lobbyists to get them all these special tax treatments that the rest of
us don't get. If you want to do something about the 1 percent, fix the
current Tax Code.
Instead, what our friends on the other side of the aisle keep doing
is defending the present Tax Code, because if you don't pass this bill,
we have the present Tax Code. We have the status quo, and the rest of
us don't see the benefits from the present Tax Code. The rest of us
need a break.
Now, I asked the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, when he
was before the Rules Committee the other night, three questions that I
think are relevant to everybody in America.
The first thing I asked him was: Will the average individual taxpayer
in my district get a tax cut? He said: Absolutely. And he pulled out a
sheet of paper. He said: In fact, in your district, Congressman, the
average family of four is going to get a tax break of over $2,100 a
year.
I know in some places in America, $2,100 a year extra in people's
pockets doesn't sound like a lot of money, but in south Alabama, an
extra $2,100 in the pockets of hardworking parents who are trying to
raise two kids, that is a lot of money. So that is a good thing that is
coming out of this bill.
I asked him: Will it be easier for those individuals to fill out
their tax returns? He said: Absolutely. By making the changes we made
in here and taking out some of these special tax breaks, we made it
easier for everybody to fill out their tax return.
Then I asked a third question. I just heard the gentlewoman from New
York talk about how this benefits big corporations. I don't have big
corporations in my district in south Alabama. I have got mainly small
businesses. Let me tell you about one.
It is called Fast Time Convenience Store. Now, we call those in
Alabama filling stations, because you go there and you put gas in your
car. In the morning, you go get a cup of coffee, you get one of their
breakfast biscuits, and you see a lot of people in there getting ready
to go to work. You go in there at lunchtime. You have also got
something called Fred's Kickin' Chicken. You go in there and get a good
thing of fried chicken and a soft drink, and he has got some barbecue
in a little trailer across the way. That is the sort of businesses I
have got in my district.
{time} 1030
I think those businesses are darn important. The owner of that
business asked me the other day when I was in there: I don't care about
the big boys.
[[Page H10254]]
Are you going to do something that helps me, that helps businesses like
me?
So I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: Are we going
to be helping those small businesses?
Absolutely. They are going to see historic tax cuts, particularly if
they are one of these passthroughs; historic tax cuts. Yes, their tax
returns will be simpler to fill out.
So when I think about it from the standpoint of south Alabama--and I
daresay my district is not that much different from most every other
district that is being represented here--I see a threefer. Individuals
get a substantial tax cut, more money in their pocket. Individuals will
have an easier time filling out their returns. These small businesses
that are the backbone of America are getting a real break.
Now, I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle think
that the government needs to be more involved in the lives of ordinary
Americans. But in order for the government to do that, the government
has to have money. The government doesn't produce anything and it
doesn't provide a single service, so they don't sell anything.
So how does the government get money?
It takes money. A tax is a taking. It takes money from people in the
private sector.
We on this side of the aisle don't think the government should be so
involved in people's lives in America, and we don't think we should be
taking so much money from them through taxes. So we have come up with
this bill that gives sort of tax breaks to ordinary people and small
businesses, and we believe that that benefits America in two ways:
Number one, giving people more control over their money is a good
thing in and of itself.
Number two, we are absolutely convinced--and dozens and dozens of
economists have told us--that this is a major shot in the arm for the
American economy.
This is also a jobs bill because this is going to pump up the
American economy and get our economy growing at a much faster rate.
When we do that, we not only create more jobs, but we create a sort of
lift in our economy when we start seeing real wage growth. What we have
been missing out there is real wage growth.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise today that we
are voting again on a bill that couldn't pass muster because it was
cobbled together in a hurry, hidden from the public, and denied any
meaningful vetting or debate. Tax reform is hard. It is even harder
when you go it alone, cooking things up in back rooms out of the light
of day.
But the real travesty here is that this bill won't help everyday
Americans in the long term. To call it once-in-a-generation tax reform
is an insult to those who came before us: Republicans and Democrats who
linked arms and, through years of partnership and compromise, crafted
the 1986 bill that House Democrats passed with President Reagan.
That is the model we should have followed, because the fact is, we
can all agree that our Tax Code is out of date and leaves countless
families behind.
This year, the U.S. Department of Labor released data showing that
there were around 6 million open jobs unfilled across the country at a
time when around 6.8 million Americans are looking for work. I believe
Congress has a responsibility to the American people to tackle this
problem from every possible angle, including tax policy.
But the Ryan-McConnell plan doesn't just fail to acknowledge or
address the problems that American workers are facing today, it cuts
people's legs off from underneath them just when they are trying to get
traction. Chairman Brady likes to talk about this bill leapfrogging us
to the front of the pack, but the truth is this bill doesn't leapfrog
us anywhere but backward.
This bill does nothing to put educational opportunities in the reach
of more Americans trying to get ahead in the 21st century economy and
does nothing to modernize research incentives that could support new
breakthroughs that create the jobs of tomorrow. It explodes the
deficit, making it that much harder to finance desperately needed
investments in infrastructure that could put people back to work.
Why are Republicans giving away the house to companies whose CEOs are
already talking about stock prices, not jobs?
As a former CEO myself, I know that economic growth is created by
great ideas and great talent, not indiscriminate corporate tax cuts at
the expense of investments in the people who have always powered our
economy.
I think tax reform should be about modernizing the Code to make us
competitive in the 21st century. That means being fiscally responsible,
forward-looking, and investing in families.
Unfortunately, this bill is a letdown for the American people, and we
will no doubt be cleaning up this mess for years to come, not just
today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we do recognize we have a difference. We recognize we
had a difference at the time we announced we were going to do this bill
and we were going to change the direction we were going. This was part
of a debate that happened during the Presidential election, where we
had an argument. The Democratic Party very clearly said: We need to
raise taxes.
Every year we see where they are on the floor during budget time to
raise spending $1 trillion and raise taxes $1 trillion. That is more
than what they had done under President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Mr.
Reid; except what happens when you do that is you kill the economy, you
kill the investment in families, in jobs, and in small businesses.
In the year after we had the massive tax increase, we had a GDP rate
of zero. That is because there was this huge transfer from free
enterprise to Uncle Sam, so the economy failed to grow. Then as the
economy began to normalize, it normalized over the next 7 years at 1.2
percent.
That is what the election was about, Mr. Speaker. Since the election,
what has happened is we have added over 1 million net new jobs, despite
a huge storm summer that impacted a lot of employment. Our stockmarket
has risen dramatically, meaning that America wants to be great again,
too. We are going to make it together.
So we do recognize differences. They want a $1 trillion increase in
spending, and they want a $1 trillion tax increase. We want to move it
the other direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours after it
passed, we already have to come back to vote on fixes to the Republican
tax scam.
This bill was so needlessly rushed that there wasn't even time to
proofread. I can only wonder what other mistakes we will discover in
the coming days, weeks, and months.
This was sloppy lawmaking and bad policymaking. In order to give
massive tax cuts to corporate interests and the top 1 percent,
Republicans have created trillions in new debt that will have to be
paid for by, you guessed it, the rest of us.
Republicans claim that everybody is getting a tax cut. But if you
read it--something they clearly didn't do--you will see that 83 percent
of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. The average savings for the
lowest earners is just $60. My own constituents in California can
actually expect to pay more in taxes thanks to the capping of the State
and local tax deduction.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this tax scam, and I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the chairman for
yielding me the time.
I have the great pleasure serving on the Rules Committee. I also have
the great pleasure of serving on the Budget Committee. So I felt it
incumbent to come down and talk a little bit about
[[Page H10255]]
the Byrd rule process that goes on in the Senate. It is part of the
1974 Budget Act. It became a custom in the Senate during 1985 and 1986,
and ultimately it was codified and put in the act permanently.
To describe what went on in the Senate as some sort of proofreading
error is just nonsense, just absolute nonsense. We have this process
called reconciliation that allows the Congress, the House, and the
Senate to get really tough things done. As a part of that process, the
Byrd rule says: What we don't want to do is get involved in extraneous
issues. We want to stay focused on these issues that are most important
to the American people. So if you try to get outside the lanes of
fundamental tax reform, those provisions become what they call
``Byrdable.''
But, Mr. Speaker, you are probably as uplifted as I am by the
conversation you hear about the importance of bipartisanship and
collaboration. I wish that that were more true. What we saw yesterday
in the United States Senate I would tell you is a little bit of the
pettiness that we see on Capitol Hill.
Is it true that the Senate had the right to prevent parents who
homeschool their children from being able to finance that homeschool
education through taxes and 529 savings accounts?
The Senate had that right under the Byrd rule and they exercised it.
Democrats went after homeschooling parents and said: No tax breaks for
you.
They had the right to do it, but to describe that as some sort of
proofreading error over here is a mistake. It was intentional to give
homeschooling parents that opportunity and it was intentional when the
Senate Democrats stripped it out.
Secondarily, it was intentional to put a title on the bill: Jobs and
Tax Cuts. It was intentional. That is why we came together to focus on
this bill, because we care about jobs and we care about a 21st century
tax system.
Was the Senate completely within their rights to strip the title of
the bill?
Mr. Speaker, they were. If you believe when the Senate can't fund the
government, when the Senate can't reauthorize CHIP, when the Senate
can't reauthorize a 702--you go right down the list--and if you believe
it is an important use of the Democratic minority's time on the Senate
side to strike the title of the bill because it doesn't actually impact
deficit reduction, it is within their right.
Does it represent the highest and best use of their time?
It does not.
Does it represent the highest and best of those of us who are here in
public service together?
It does not.
I recognize that we have fundamental disagreements about the impact
of tax reform and its merits.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do great things together, and
occasionally I come down to this floor and I put my heart into it. I
don't just put my heart into it on the floor, I put my heart into it
for hours and hours, day after day, in the Rules Committee. I put my
heart into it on the Transportation Committee. I put my heart into it
on the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what?
Sometimes I lose. Sometimes I lose. But what makes this process great
is we both come down here and do the very best that we can.
Let's not describe what is going on here for the American people as
some sort of proofreading error, as some sort of rush job where folks
didn't have time to do it right. That does a disservice not just to the
Members of Congress, but to the staff that work through these issues
with us side by side, day after day, week after week, month after
month, and, yes, in the case of this bill, year after year.
We have a choice with how we spend our days. I am proud that we spend
our days doing fundamental tax reform. It has been far too long. We
don't call it once in a generation because it is a rhetorical tool. We
call it once in a generation because there are men and women in this
Chamber who were not alive the last time that we did it. It is
important, and I am glad we are doing it.
The Senate has every right to do what the Senate did yesterday. And
by ``the Senate,'' I mean the minority Members who insisted on their
point of order. We could have sent this bill to the President's desk
with protections for homeschooling parents who are doing their very
best to provide for their kids, but my Democratic colleagues said no.
So this bill is still going to go to the President's desk. It is just
not going to have those protections. I believe that is a mistake. I
hope we will come back together. I hope we will right that wrong in the
coming days.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so much for his leadership on this
issue. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his leadership on this issue.
Regular order takes some time. I am glad we are getting it done.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
friend from Georgia that it wasn't Democrats who found that. The
Parliamentarian in the Senate found those errors, and they had to be
corrected. Let's put history in the right perspective.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let's make no mistake about it. We are here
this morning solely because of a mistake. This is the blunder rule.
This is not the first big blunder in this bill, and indeed it certainly
won't be the last. We will be cleaning up this mess and the blunders in
this bill all of next year.
The only questions are: How many people will get hurt in the process?
How much money is lost to the United States Treasury because of the
many loopholes in this Swiss cheese-kind of a bill that they have
created? How many loopholes will deny revenue that eventually will come
out of the pockets of the middle class and will come out of the small
businesses of this country to make up for all these special interest
provisions that the lobbyists got added?
{time} 1045
This is what happens when you run roughshod over the process, when
every member of the Trump administration lacks the intestinal
fortitude, the courage, to come and answer any questions about this
bill. That is what happened here. Americans need to understand that.
Trump is over there tweeting away. He is bragging about all the
wonderful things. But is he willing to send one official--even one--to
come before any committee of this Congress and respond to questions
about the many wrongs that are contained in this bill? Of course the
answer is absolutely no.
What about the businesses across America that are impacted by this
bill? What about the academic experts of all political points of view
who could come and respond and help perfect and avoid errors just like
this? They were all left out. There was not one minute of examination
from any objective source coming in and talking in a hearing to the
committee about this bill.
I am one of the conferees to adjust the differences between the House
and the Senate. My, was that a great honor, a great experience in the
new democracy that these Republicans are providing for America.
In that conference committee, the chairman of the committee refused
to entertain a single motion or a single amendment. But he told us not
to worry. After we adopt this conference report behind closed doors and
agree to it, you can look at it and can read it over the weekend before
you vote on it at the beginning of the next week. You just can't change
it in any way. You cannot study it in any way. You cannot share it with
anybody in any way because we are only interested in sharing it with
those lobbyists with whom we have special connections and operate in
secrecy behind closed doors.
Of course, one of the many sad things about this particular bill is
that it lost its name in the Senate in what we are considering this
morning.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 2 minutes.
[[Page H10256]]
Mr. DOGGETT. In fact, if you turn to the bill, which is a big old
thick stack, you see it says ``short title, et cetera,'' and it stops.
It is nameless at this point. It is a bill that has no name. And, of
course, it has no heart.
But what is the solution to that? Well, every time Donald Trump
touches a tower, he puts his name in bold letters across it: Trump
Tower. This is the only accomplishment that President Trump can point
to this year.
Why don't we put his name on this bill? We could call it the ``Donald
J. Trump Inequality Act,'' because it will do more than any legislation
we have considered here in recent years to widen the gap between those
at the very top and the rest of us.
Or we could call it the ``Donald J. Trump Family Windfall'' bill,
because he and his family are going to pocket an immense amount of
money. There is no surprise they are over there at the White House
celebrating all afternoon. He and his family personally will walk away
with a huge amount of resources out of this.
Or we could just call it ``Fat Cats Get Fatter,'' because one of our
colleagues on the Republican side who is closest, perhaps, to President
Trump admitted and said quite candidly: I can't go back to my donors if
we don't pass this legislation.
What a study in wise investment.
The Senate Budget Committee, last night, pointed out that Goldman
Sachs contributed over $26 million to Republicans since 1990. They get
about a $6 billion tax cut. Where can you get a return like that? Or
Pfizer, who contributed $15 million, they get a nearly $39 billion tax
cut.
Yes, this bill is a job creator. It creates more jobs for accountants
and tax lawyers than anyone can imagine because they will be going in
there trying to undo some of the things that were done and shape the
loopholes a little more favorably for their folks.
What we have here is a bill that is compared also with the other
issues that we have here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman again has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. I know how much the gentlewoman cares about the future
of our children and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
I think of the Family Visiting program to help young parents. That is
in our committee.
I think about our crumbling roads and bridges and the fact that we
need dollars to invest in them to keep our transportation system
competitive.
They agree on all these measures. They make speeches about them. The
only thing is they don't want to put any money into them. They say we
can't afford to do that. If we don't steal Medicare premium money to
fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and use general revenue
dollars, that will drive up the debt. At the same time, they are
willing to drive the debt up trillions of dollars, they refuse to
invest in people, or invest in our children and provide them the
healthcare that they deserve.
In short, this is a Christmas gift to those at the very top--and
especially to the Trump family and his billionaire buddies and other
real estate moguls who gain in the conference report. They get the
Christmas gift. The American people, the middle class, get the gift
wrapping, and that is it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, with the Christmas
season upon us, a favorite tradition in my family every year is to sit
around the television and watch one of our favorite movies, ``It's a
Wonderful Life.'' Like most people, it is hard not to get a lump in
your throat at the end as George Bailey and his family prove
triumphant.
But it occurred to me this week in reading the Republican tax plan
that I guess not everyone roots for George Bailey when watching that
movie. There are a few people pulling for Mr. Potter.
Well, here we have a tax plan that is written for and to the benefit
of Mr. Potter and the rest like him: the wealthiest one-tenth of 1
percent. The richest 1 percent in our country are going to get 83
percent of the money in this tax plan, and the wealthiest one-tenth of
1 percent will get the majority of the money in this plan.
Today, do you know how much you have to make in order to be in the
wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent in our country? $5 million a year or
more.
So the Mr. Potter we have in the White House these days is going to
be pretty happy, and his family is going to make out. But the working
people of Pennsylvania and the working people of America are getting
stiffed.
Income inequality is higher today than at any point in American
history. Many Americans haven't received a pay raise in decades, in
real terms, and here we have a tax plan that is going to take that
existing problem and make it much worse.
This is wrong. This is unfair. It does nothing for the hard-pressed,
hardworking middle class of our country who deserve a pay raise.
Let's give them a Christmas gift. Let's give them the happy ending
that they deserve, the Hollywood movie ending. Let's say that the Mr.
Potters of this country have had it damn good for the last 20 years,
and let's help out the George Baileys, especially at this
Christmastime.
Let's say ``no'' to this tax bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
also for her tremendous leadership.
Let's talk a little bit about the winners in this bill.
I think it is interesting to note that, if you are General Electric,
since 1990 to 2017, you have contributed over $20 million to Republican
campaigns. What you get back in tax relief from this legislation is
almost $16 billion over the life of this bill.
If you are Microsoft, you have contributed over $17 million, and you
get back $27 billion from this tax bill.
This is such a great investment for big corporations who have given
money to Republican candidates over the years. But if you are not part
of the country's wealthiest 1 percent, this GOP tax scam is a really
bad deal for you.
It is especially bad for America's senior citizens. This tax scam
raises premiums for those 50 to 64 by 10 percent, an average of $1,400,
and the deficit it creates will require, under the law, $25 billion in
a Medicare tax cut next year.
We have heard the Republicans say we are going to get that money
back, but in this bill there is a $25 billion cut in Medicare next
year. That is only the beginning. It gets worse.
Republicans aren't even hiding the fact that they intend to use this
deficit that they created of $1.5 trillion as justification for
slashing Medicare and Medicaid. They have said it. They have admitted
it. They are even talking about raising the age of Social Security
eligibility in order to give these tax breaks to the rich.
Seniors should not have to foot the bill for a tax scam that gives 83
percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. American seniors deserve
a better deal. So do 86 million families who would see a tax increase
as a result of this scam.
To my Republican colleagues, you really do have a second chance.
Because the bill got messed up, there were mistakes, it was done so
fast, done in secret, it is coming back to us today. So you have a
second chance to do the right thing. Please take it. Vote ``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chairman of the Republican
Policy Committee.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting day for the people of
Indiana. With the passage of President Trump's tax plan, working
Hoosiers will see more jobs, bigger paychecks, and a fairer, simpler
Tax Code.
The scare tactics of my Democratic colleagues come from a tired
playbook written decades ago. It is old-style
[[Page H10257]]
class warfare politics and tired arguments that are just not true.
The proof is in the paycheck. The truth is, an average Indiana family
will see tax cuts of between $1,000 and $2,000 under this plan.
Let me say that again. Despite the rhetoric, working families will
see a tax cut of between $1,000 and $2,000 under today's tax plan.
Child tax credits will double to $2,000 per child. The standard Federal
deduction will double, too.
We get rid of the unpopular and unfair Obama individual mandate tax.
Now, Hoosiers will not be taxed depending on their healthcare
decisions.
Job creators will see tax cuts, too, making America's small
businesses and big businesses competitive in the global economy and
better able to create good-paying jobs.
All of this is good news for Indiana's working families. With today's
tax cut, help is on the way. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump White House released a National Security
Strategy Report on Monday, and it pointed out: ``The national debt, now
over $20 trillion, presents a grave threat to America's long-term
prosperity and, by extension, our national security.''
So what do we do about that? We are going to add $1.5 trillion more.
The overwhelming majority of expert analyses show that, even with
growth taken into account, this bill will cause the deficit to
skyrocket. It isn't just a threat to our economic security. According
to the White House, it is a grave threat to our national security as
well.
The bill in front of us costs $1.5 trillion and includes permanent
tax cuts for corporations, but temporary ones for individuals.
{time} 1100
So who do you think is going to lose those first?
It is really very troubling, I think, too: the idea of looking ahead
to what we are going to be dealt with. And we understand already that
next year the cry will be: Oh, look at this debt. This is awful. We are
going to have to cut spending.
Entitlements will be the place where the Republicans prefer to go.
So let's prepare all of our senior citizens on Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course, that also hurts the ACA, that they
are going to be on the line next year.
Future Congresses will be pressured to reject the budget gimmick and
extend many of those tax cuts, meaning the true cost of the bill is
much higher.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget, the expirations and delays hide potential further costs, which
could ultimately increase the cost of the bill to $2.2 trillion.
I am sure that my Republican colleagues will argue that growth will
prevent the deficit from skyrocketing. But the CRFB reports that even
with dynamic scoring, the total cost of the bill without budgetary
gimmicks would be over $1.6 trillion and up to $2 trillion with
interest. And that takes growth into account. As a result, our debt
could exceed the size of our economy by 2027.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget's analysis, entitled ``Final Tax Bill Could End Up
Costing $2.2 Trillion.'
[From the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Dec. 18, 2017]
Final Tax Bill Could End Tip Costing $2.2 Trillion
The final conference committee agreement of the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act (TCJA) would cost $1.46 trillion under
conventional scoring and over $1 trillion on a dynamic basis
over ten years, leading debt to rise to between 95 percent
and 98 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027
(compared to 91 percent under current law). However, the bill
also includes a number of expirations and long-delayed tax
hikes meant to reduce the official cost of the bill. These
expirations and delays hide $570 billion to $725 billion of
potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the
cost of the bill to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion (before
interest) on a conventional basis or roughly $1.5 trillion to
$1.7 trillion on a dynamic basis over a decade. As a result,
debt would rise to between 98 percent and 100 percent of GDP
by 2027.
Ignoring the expirations in this bill is particularly
disingenuous given the claim that using a ``current policy
baseline'' reduces the bill's costs. The (flawed) idea is
that the bill should be compared to a current policy baseline
that counts expired and expiring provisions as if they are
continued permanently. (For more on this, see Current Policy
Gimmick Would Add Half-Trillion to Debt (http://www.crfb.org/
blogs/current-policy-gimmick-would-add-half-trillion-debt)).
Using such a construct does not make sense if cost of
continuing future expirations contained in the bill are not
included in the initial cost estimate. Policymakers are
effectively claiming $450 billion of current policy savings
while ignoring over $700 billion of current policy costs.
This latest estimate updates our tally of the gimmicks from
a previous version of the bill (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/
senate-tax-bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). The
changes made in conference include both tax increases and
decreases that mostly offset each other, with a net increase
in the ten-year cost of $9 billion (compared to the Senate
bill). With these changes, the bill now has a total cost of
$1.46 trillion, or roughly $1.77 trillion with interest.
While there is no new dynamic score of the bill, assuming it
continues to produce very roughly $400 billion of dynamic
feedback (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/official-dynamic-score-
shows-senate-tax-bill-will-still-cost-over-1-trillion) would
reduce that cost to about $1.05 trillion, or roughly $1.30
trillion with interest.
However, this cost does not account for as much as $725
billion of potential gimmicks that the conferenced bill
contains.
In the earlier version passed by the Senate, we identified
$585 billion (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax-bill-
could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion) of arbitrary sunsets and
sunrises of certain provisions. Most significantly, nearly
all of the individual income tax provisions would have
expired after 2025. Additionally, the expensing provisions
``bonus depreciation'' began to phase down starting in 2022,
and a number of new tax increases appeared in 2026. Some
provisions were set to expire even earlier, such as an
expanded deduction for medical expenses and provisions for
craft beer and paid leave--clearly setting the stage for
future extensions.
The conferenced bill adds to the Senate bill's gimmicks,
which we explain here (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax-
bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). Most significantly,
it advances the start date of the bill's requirement for
research expenses to be amortized, which nearly doubles the
ten-year savings of the provision. Additionally, the bill
tightens its limits on the business interest deduction four
years in the future--a future tax hike that may not be
allowed to ever occur. Other changes are smaller and move in
both directions.
Adding these gimmicks to the cost of the bill would
increase the total cost to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion.
Though the dynamic effect of making the bill permanent is
unknown, we estimate a permanent bill would produce roughly
$450 billion of feedback, leading to a dynamic cost of
roughly $1.6 trillion to $1.7 trillion. With interest, these
costs would rise to $2.4 trillion to $2.5 trillion, or $1.9
trillion to $2 trillion with dynamic effects included, over a
decade.
TRUE COST OF CONFERENCE BILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Ten-Year Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCJA as reported by the conference committee... $1.46 trillion
Sunsetting individual tax provisions after 2025 $315 billion
Amortizing Research & Experimentation (R&E) $120 billion
expenses after 2021...........................
Phasing out full expensing after 2022.......... $0 to 80 billion
Making business interest deduction more strict $0 to $75 billion
after 2021....................................
Making foreign tax provisions more strict after $50 billion
2025..........................................
Sunsetting more generous medical expense $45 billion
deduction after 2018..........................
Sunsetting credit for employers who offer paid $30 billion
leave after 2019..............................
Sunsetting craft beverage tax reforms.......... $10 billion
Conventional ``Real'' Cost..................... $2.0-$2.2 trillion
Potential Dynamic Feedback Effects............. -$450 billion
Dynamic ``Real Cost''.......................... $1.6-$1.7 trillion
True Cost with Interest........................ $2.4-2.5 trillion
True Cost with Interest and Dynamic Effects.... $1.9-2.0 trillion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is, the bill would cause debt to increase from 77
percent of GDP this year to 95 percent or 98 percent of GDP
by 2027, depending on whether dynamic effects are included,
as compared to 91 percent projected under current law. If
expiring provisions are extended and late-stage tax hikes
avoided, debt could reach as high as 98 percent or 100
percent of GDP by 2027. In other words, the national debt
could exceed the size of the economy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we have urgent spending needs. This bill
could keep us from dealing with infrastructure, education, healthcare,
medical research, and, of course, we have to pay the costs of our
military.
Make no mistake, exploding the deficit to pay for this bill--this
giveaway to the rich--will come at the expense of all of those
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, late in June of 2012, like many Americans, I anxiously
awaited a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States while they
were considering the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Of
course, we were
[[Page H10258]]
told during the run-up to that law, the Affordable Care Act law, that
the individual mandate was not a tax; it was, in fact, just a
requirement that everyone should buy the insurance.
It seemed unreasonable under the Commerce Clause that that
requirement, in fact, would be constitutional. Then, at the end of
June, the Supreme Court made the ruling. I was probably right that it
was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. But with some creative
work, the Supreme Court said: It is a tax, and the Congress has the
absolute power to tax; so, of course, it can stay in the law, and the
law stands.
So here we are today, considering tax reform for the first time in 31
years. And since the Supreme Court told us the individual mandate is
indeed a tax, it is appropriate, it is right that the individual
mandate be part of the discussion today.
The House bill, when we passed it, did not include anything on the
individual mandate; but the Senate, in their wisdom, sent it back to us
with the individual mandate repealed.
Now, make no mistake about it, the House has repealed the individual
mandate any number of times over the last several years. The Senate has
not. So the Senate has repealed the individual mandate for the first
time.
I say: Let's meet them where they are, let's pass this bill, let's
repeal the individual mandate, and get on with making America great
again.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that we are back here fixing the
bill, though I am surprised it is so soon, because we have been saying
all along that we have got a long way to go with this bill.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
that will prohibit any legislation from being considered on the House
floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction, or
repeals the ACA's individual mandate.
We know that repealing the individual mandate will lead to 13 million
fewer Americans with health insurance and will cost premiums to rise by
10 percent. Now, I know that not giving healthcare is not much of an
issue for the majority of this Congress because they have been trying
to do that for a long time.
The bill also caps the State and local tax deduction, hurting
taxpayers in my home State of New York, in California, and in other
States in the Northeast, all of whom are donor States. My own State
sends $48 billion a year to Washington, money that we get back nothing
for. But we are not going to be able to do that anymore without this
deduction. What we are doing then is risking the stability of the
revenues that fund the public schools, fire departments, and hospitals
in those States.
Mr. Speaker, let's make things right and defeat the previous
question.
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 reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tax Policy
for the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is such an interesting thing to listen to. Our
friends on the other side of the aisle have characterized the reason
that we are here today is because of a blunder in proofreading. Well,
it is simply an obtuse argument.
There are three criticisms of the bill:
One is the name change. Good grief, hardly a proofreading error. This
title may be cited as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That is section
11000(a). According to the Senate Parliamentarian, it falls out. That
is not a proofreading error.
The second criticism is the Cruz amendment, the language that was
offered in terms of 529 plans. This was offered on the Senate floor.
This was not a part of a conference committee or some late-night
scheme. This was openly debated.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle, in the other body, chose
not to pursue a point of order at that time. They chose to do it last
night. It is their prerogative. But that is not a proofreading problem,
nor is the issue as it relates to endowment language. This came out of
the Senate Finance Committee. But what is interesting to me, Mr.
Speaker, is how familiar our friends on the other side of the aisle are
with mistakes.
Do you remember the 1099 mandate that came out as a result of
ObamaCare?
A huge negative impact on small business, that they had to work with
us and others and the President--then-President Obama--in order to
remedy.
Do you remember the risk corridor changes that were signed into law
by President Obama?
Do you remember the delays by blog posts late on Friday afternoons--
to my recollection--when the administration reached the conclusion that
the bill was in knots, they couldn't figure out a way to move forward,
and they said, ``Let's delay it and let's announce that quietly''? Or
decisions not to enforce the law itself?
But the biggest mistake of all was obviously the rollout of the
website, which was a complete disaster that even friends on the other
side of the aisle can't defend.
With that said, there are going to be technical corrections to this
bill, just without question. But I think what we should do is recognize
that, speak to that, acknowledge that, and not characterize procedural
matters as proofreading errors. It is not an argument that I find
persuasive.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this measure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra once said: ``It is like deja vu
all over again.''
So today we are back on the House floor after this big, dramatic
celebration of this supposedly historic bill, a Republican tax bill
that really is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
It is the classic bait and switch. It is a Ponzi scheme. The tax cuts
aren't going to be meaningful for working families and everyday
Americans, and the jobs will never materialize.
It is a Republican tax bill that is simply designed to benefit
millionaires and billionaires, the wealthy and the well-off, special
interests, corporations, and big donors. It is a shameful abdication of
responsibility, a dereliction of duty, and an incredible malicious act
of legislative malpractice. It is all based on this phony, fraudulent,
and fake theory of trickle-down economics.
Where is there any evidence that trickle-down economics has ever
worked for the American people?
Ronald Reagan cut taxes for millionaires in 1981. We didn't get
strong economic growth. We got a deficit that exploded.
George W. Bush cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires in 2001
and 2003. We didn't get strong economic growth. We got the worst
economy since the Great Depression.
And, in Kansas, when you had this great Republican experiment and you
were going to cut taxes for the wealthy and the well-off and for
companies, what happened? Did they get strong economic growth in
Kansas?
No. You got prison riots, overcrowded classrooms, and crumbling
infrastructure.
Trickle-down economics, what does it mean for the middle class?
You may get a trickle, but you are guaranteed to stay down.
This bill is shameful in your attack on middle class Americans.
Millions of homes will get a tax increase. You will undermine Medicare
and explode the deficit.
Don't ask me. Paul Ryan himself made that point.
Our children and grandchildren are forced to shoulder $1.5 trillion
in debt simply to pay for the lifestyles of the rich and shameless.
Shame on you.
Vote ``no'' against this reckless GOP tax scam.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H10259]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the majority is clearly unable to responsibly run the
House of Representatives, because here we are fixing the bill less than
24 hours after it was passed.
It is a perfect example of why we need to go back to regular order:
actually holding hearings, have expert witnesses and testimony, and
properly vet bills.
That is pretty elementary, but it surely is true. It is especially
true for bills of this magnitude that will effect every single citizen
in America.
All the while, the government is about to run out of money, and we
haven't even been able to reach a budget deal. That is Friday that the
government will close if we do not do that.
We still haven't funded the Children's Health Insurance Program,
which provides needed healthcare to more than 9 million children.
We haven't reauthorized the community health centers, which serve
more than 25 million people.
We haven't renewed the Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income
students rely on for their education.
All of those programs expired back on September 30.
But here we are, wasting valuable time trying to fix the disaster of
a bill that the majority passed just hours ago. It is embarrassing and
it is humiliating. If we don't do better, the public is going to make
us pay the price.
I want to close by quoting an article that appeared this morning in
The Washington Post, written by a great columnist, Dana Milbank. I
wouldn't miss his writing for the world.
``Maybe he is right and all those blue-chip economists and the
nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the
Congressional Budget Office, and others are wrong. Maybe growth will
dramatically exceed forecasts, millions will enter the labor force and
find work, wages will soar, and the $1.5 trillion tax bill will pay for
itself. But if all that doesn't happen, the Trump tax will be blamed.''
Mr. Speaker, I end the quote there, reminding you, as Senator Schumer
did yesterday, that this could be an anchor around your ankles for the
rest of your lives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the
rule, and the bill. For heaven's sake, let us take this opportunity
given us and not force this onto the American public.
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 not only for her
service to the Rules Committee, but also for her service to this body
and to her party.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, I will take her up on that. We will
bet that this works because we looked at what happened when President
Obama, Harry Reid, and Speaker Pelosi put a $1 trillion tax increase on
the American people; then spent $870 billion on a surplus; then added
in $1 trillion of debt when they worked the deal that was for student
loans; then we did cash for clunkers; then we did cell phones for all;
and it just went on and on and on and on. And now they want to place
the $20 trillion deficit on Republicans.
What we are trying to do is to recognize that we did look at what
happened economically during the 8 years that President Obama was here:
1.2 percent annual GDP growth, while our trading partners around the
world--Germany, Japan, India, China--all raised their GDP numbers off
growing economies because the average rate in Europe for corporate tax
is 23.6 percent, while America was at 39 percent, and States all across
the United States raised their taxation just like President Obama
encouraged them to do: to grow government, to make it more expensive.
But what happened is, then the free enterprise system was not
competitive. We began losing jobs all across the country. We began
losing our competitiveness because of the high taxation rate. That is
why we are going to do something about it.
So when you raise taxes $1 trillion and spend an extra $10 trillion
over 8 years, there is an impact. Of course, there is an impact. What
we are trying to do is respond back to the American people, who last
November said: Instead of going that way, why don't we go this way; why
don't we be the world's leader; why be 24th in the world in
competitiveness for business; why not be first or second; why not add
jobs; why not do something that places Americans, the middle class of
this country in a better position?
That is the call that we are about. That is what Republicans have
been trying to do, and we are responding with a bill that is going to
take Americans--instead of being the most expensive tax country in the
world, we are going to make us among the best. We are going to be an
attractor of jobs, of investment dollars, of opportunity.
The real problem with this country, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), a Member of Congress, spoke about it to the Rules
Committee, tens of thousands of jobs that pay up to $60,000 in his home
State are going begging right now. Thousands of jobs in this country
are going begging because we do have a problem where America doesn't
want to come and take these jobs; where we cannot have people who pass
drug tests; where we have people who say: Well, I don't have those
abilities. Well, in Dallas, Texas, my home, we have $21-an-hour jobs
begging for people who could come and work.
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to encourage America and
Americans, let's get to work. Let's make this happen. Let's not blame
it on somebody else. There are jobs available in America, and we are
going to answer the question. We are going to answer the bell. The
Republican Party is going to stand on what we do right now, and we are
willing to take what comes that way.
And I will tell you what comes that way. When you go from 39.6
percent, the highest corporate tax in the world, to where you mark
yourself down where virtually the rest of the world is at 23, in this
case 21, we are going to be competitive. Americans are winners.
Americans want to win. Americans are the best at entrepreneurism. They
are the best at being innovative.
We are now--instead of Uncle Sam taking 39 percent and making us
drain our resources, we are going to incent Americans to go do it.
Mr. Speaker, my staff, Ron Donato, my tax man, who has spent a lot of
time working with me listening to people back in Dallas, Texas, we
think this is a good deal to make the free enterprise system, which is
the greatest system in the world. We are going to fuel it; we are going
to fund it; we are going to make it work.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, we will be willing to land on what
happens here, so mark your calendar right now. Go look at where we are,
and watch where we are going. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to
support this rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 668 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
``SEC. 2. 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. 3. 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. 5000A).
[[Page H10260]]
(b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order,
as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point
of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 188, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 697]
YEAS--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
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--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
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
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
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Kennedy
Napolitano
Pocan
Renacci
Sewell (AL)
Smith (TX)
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1143
Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page H10261]]
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed her 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.
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. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 190, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 698]
YEAS--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
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--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
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)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bishop (UT)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Kennedy
Napolitano
Pocan
Renacci
Smith (TX)
Thompson (MS)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1151
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.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``Yea'' on rollcall No. 694, ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 695, ``Nay'' on
rollcall No. 696, ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 697, and ``Yea'' on rollcall
No. 698.
____________________