[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.

                          ____________________