[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 160 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H9101-H9113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6756, AMERICAN INNOVATION ACT OF 
 2018; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6757, FAMILY SAVINGS ACT OF 
 2018; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6760, PROTECTING FAMILY AND 
  SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUTS ACT OF 2018; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS 
   DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 2018, THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 2018

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1084 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1084

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6756) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote new 
     business innovation, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill,

[[Page H9102]]

     as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6757) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage retirement and 
     family savings, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6760) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain 
     provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affecting 
     individuals, families, and small businesses. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions. The yeas and nays 
     shall be considered as ordered on the question of passage. 
     Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to the bill or 
     amendments thereto.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     October 1, 2018, through November 12, 2018 --
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 8.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is my friend and 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 
have 5 legislative days 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 today in support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation. This rule provides for consideration of 
H.R. 6760, the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 
2018; H.R. 6757, the Family Savings Act of 2018; and H.R. 6756, the 
American Innovation Act of 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, just yesterday we had members of the Ways and Means 
Committee and other Members who came to the Rules Committee. They came 
to the Rules Committee to discuss before the committee the important 
aspects of continuing the economic growth that we have currently right 
now in our lifetime in the United States of America.
  What a great time to be an American. Perhaps more importantly, what a 
great time to look forward to a great future, a future not only where 
the American Dream becomes available to each and every person, but even 
if you happen to be on the lowest end of the totem pole, perhaps 
beginning work today, those are the people who have benefited from not 
only the tax cut that President Trump, this House, and the Republican 
Senate made sure that we pass, but, more importantly, giving to the 
American worker the opportunity to have, not just a sense of 
accomplishment, not just a job, but potentially a career that moves 
forward.
  What has happened as a result of that is what brings us to where we 
are here today.
  They say that success has many fathers and mothers. In this case, it 
is aunts, uncles, and all sorts of people, Mr. Speaker, who can proudly 
look up and say: I am a part of what is probably the greatest economy 
that so many people can now enjoy.
  Instead of being isolated to one section of this economy, it will 
abound.
  You will hear me talk about even people who get up early in the 
morning, early risers. I used to be one of those because I threw a 
paper route. I would have to get up in the morning, and it gave me a 
lot of time to think about my future as I served what was my paper 
route, my small business, and my opportunity in second, third, fourth, 
fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, as I developed myself as a 
young man--not just as a Scout, to become an Eagle Scout--but as a 
person who saw himself growing up in a great country, America.
  That is how I developed my American Dream. I developed my American 
Dream by sitting down with my family at a table and understanding 
Americanism and opportunity. It was about the free enterprise system. 
It was about a dream that I would have.
  For too long, Mr. Speaker, we have had those in government who 
controlled our lives. They controlled our lives with high taxes, more 
rules and regulations, and a demand that Washington knew more about our 
dream than we did.
  No more, Mr. Speaker, because last December there was an 
opportunity--a historic opportunity--that was seen as political because 
our friends on the other side did not vote for the bill. Even today 
they take advantage and talk about what are supposedly its frailties. 
But the American people know differently, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we have today in America a higher GDP rate than we do 
unemployment rate. Today we have the opportunity to see that we are 
going to grow that GDP by asking this Congress to make permanent that 
which today is in law for only a short 10 years. We believe that what 
we have done is to give the American people--even people at the lowest 
end--the opportunity to take part in making America great again. At 
that same time, we will make their lives so much better.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is we are going to talk 
about this today, and you will see that there are two different 
visions. One vision wants to go back to higher taxation, rules and 
regulations, and government control--government control not just in 
taxation, but also in healthcare--and we are, as a Republican Party and 
as the free enterprise party, going to stand up and say that we will be 
there on behalf of all workers and that we believe that the free 
enterprise system in this country has produced much that has helped so 
many people.

  That is how we pay for Social Security. That is how we pay for 
Medicare. That is how we pay for Medicaid. It is done through more 
people working, not through higher taxes, higher unemployment, and more 
misery.
  So, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear today the argument that is 
taking place all across this country on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, and you are going to see that you, Mr. Speaker, and 
every single Member, will have an opportunity to say that we believe 
that the economic opportunity

[[Page H9103]]

for all Americans is equity. It is opportunity, and it is available at 
not just a theater near you but in your hometown.
  So we are proud of who we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, 
my good friend, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago, as the already unpopular Republican tax 
scam was making its way through Congress, Speaker Ryan stood in this 
Capitol and made a bet. He wagered that ``results are going to be what 
makes this popular.''
  Today the results are clear, and they are not what the majority and 
President Trump promised. Big corporations have gotten a windfall. 
Workers have gotten laid off. Jobs are being shipped overseas, and the 
richest 1 percent is getting 83 percent of the law's benefits.
  Despite those realities, my colleagues seemed to be surprised 
recently when a survey commissioned by the Republican National 
Committee was released in the media. It found that the public believes 
their tax scam benefits the wealthy and large corporations over average 
Americans by a two-to-one margin--61 percent to 30 percent.
  Let me repeat that before the President tries to tweet that it is 
fake news. It was a poll conducted for Republicans by a Republican 
polling firm. That is why we are here today with tax 2.1, Mr. Speaker, 
because the majority's bet is turning out to be a losing one.

                              {time}  1230

  Nine months ago, the Republicans were assuring themselves their tax 
scam was good politics. Back then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell said, ``If we can't sell this to the American people, we 
ought to go into another line of work.'' With polling like this, some 
Washington Republicans may have to. But first, they are here today with 
a package of bills that represents their last-ditch attempt at trying 
to turn the tide before November. And the sequel is as bad as the 
original in three key ways.
  First, the original Republican tax scam added $2.3 trillion to the 
national debt to give the wealthy more tax cuts. 2.0 would add another 
$3 trillion to the debt. You won't see its cost on the budget 
scorecard. Republicans think they can waive a magic wand and hide the 
costs. But I have news for them: this is Congress, this isn't Hogwartz. 
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that this is going to cost $3.2 
trillion.
  It is important that people pay attention to this. I have got to give 
the Republicans credit for their sneaky ways to try to avoid the 
realities. They have an amendment that says this massive giveaway to 
the wealthy magically doesn't count.
  And here is the other thing. We won't even get to vote on it. It is 
in the rule. It will be self-executed once the rule passes. So no one 
has to take any responsibility for adding all this to our debt.
  This is at a time when the U.S. Treasury is borrowing money at a rate 
of $5.4 billion a day. The Congressional Budget Office recently found 
that the majority and the Trump administration have blown a $900 
billion hole in the Federal budget. The deficit will increase by nearly 
32 percent this year alone, with one of the main causes being the first 
GOP tax law.
  Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republican Party that claimed to 
care about fiscal discipline?
  This majority is drowning in red ink. And the list goes on.
  Second, the original Republican tax scam reduced the Medicare trust 
fund by 3 years. 2.0 could trigger an automatic 4 percent cut in 
Medicare. That means hundreds of billions of dollars for this program 
would be lost.
  My colleagues on the other side may stand here today and claim that 
they want to protect Medicare and Social Security. But don't believe 
them. Don't be fooled. Right after their tax law exploded the deficit, 
what did the President's chief economic adviser do? He called for new 
cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
  It is no wonder that in the Republican poll I referenced earlier, 
many Americans worry that the tax law would lead to cuts to these vital 
programs. Make no mistake: under the majority, these earned benefits 
are on the chopping block so Republicans can give tax breaks to the 
wealthy.
  Third, the original Republican tax scam temporarily limited the State 
and local tax deduction, undermining funding for priorities like 
schools, firefighters, and police officers. Under 2.0, that deduction 
would be made permanent. More than 45 million Americans claim the SALT 
deduction, including those in Massachusetts, by the way. They will have 
a harder time doing things like buying a home if this package becomes 
law, all while State and local governments have a harder time investing 
in their communities.
  Even while making these harmful changes to the Tax Code, the majority 
apparently couldn't be bothered to make changes that could actually 
help Americans who have become victims to natural disasters. In the 
wake of Hurricane Florence and the largest wildfires in California 
history, Democrats asked the majority to include an amendment that 
would provide to all eligible Americans the same type of relief that 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee provided his constituents 
last year after Hurricane Harvey. That request was denied. It is 
outrageous that, under the majority, the tax relief Americans get after 
a tragedy apparently depends on their ZIP Code.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a word for doing the same thing other and over 
and over again and expecting a different result. I think the majority 
would be hard-pressed to find anyone watching today who thinks doubling 
down on such an unpaid for and damaging policy is anything other than 
insanity.
  The policies in these proposals are very similar, but there is one 
key difference worth noting, and that is the process.
  The first time around, the majority used special fast-track 
procedures to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations. 
They pulled out all the stops to assure that it became law as quickly 
as possible. They couldn't even find time to hold a hearing before 
voting on it. But now, on a proposal they are claiming is for the 
middle class, there are no fast-track procedures. There is not even a 
guarantee that this proposal will even be considered in the Senate.
  Every middle-class American watching should realize this: with this 
majority, the wealthy and the well-connected get a windfall under a 
special, quick process. Their tax cuts were virtually guaranteed under 
a rigged system. Your tax cuts aren't getting that same urgency. There 
is no special process for you. This plan will be left in limbo on the 
other side of the Capitol. And we all know that.
  The fact is, their procedures give away the whole game. This isn't 
about policy. This is about politics. The first tax scam isn't paying 
the kind of dividends that the majority anticipated. It is unpopular. 
So they are trying to pass this to have another talking point on the 
campaign trail. The public didn't fall for the majority's spin with 
their last tax scam, and I think they will see through this one again.
  They will see what this is all about. They will see this for what it 
is: a proposal that continues the same, old Republican policies at a 
time when the public is demanding a new direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleague was talking about the dismal results, I turned to my 
phone here and it is all green up and down on the stock market, because 
the stock market knows that today we are talking about making permanent 
the things that work for the American people; things that work well for 
employers; things that work well for bringing stock market prices, not 
only back, but understanding that many, many Americans and our seniors 
across this country have invested in the stock market. It is up 40 
percent since we have had an opportunity to pass the tax cut.

  The success of the free enterprise system is what my colleagues hate. 
They want to sell government, they want to sell defeat, they want to 
sell

[[Page H9104]]

the things that are the fear about making progress. The facts of the 
case are real simple, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from, of all places, 
The New York Times, that was dated August 3 of this year. On August 3, 
The New York Times, who does some inciteful reporting, said, ``Workers 
Hardest Hit by Recession Are Joining in Recovery.''

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 2, 2018]

        Workers Hardest Hit by Recession Are Joining in Recovery

               (By Nelson D. Schwartz and Ben Casselman)

       The least educated American workers, who took the hardest 
     hit in the Great Recession, were also among the slowest to 
     harvest the gains of the recovery. Now they are a striking 
     symbol of a strong economy.
       The unemployment rate for those without a high school 
     diploma fell to 5.1 percent in July, the Labor Department 
     reported Friday, the lowest since the government began 
     collecting data on such workers in 1992. At the economy's 
     nadir in the summer of 2009, the unemployment rate for high 
     school dropouts hit 15.6 percent, more than three times the 
     peak unemployment rate for college graduates.
       Buffeted by technological change and seemingly out of place 
     in an economy where skills and credentials are in ever more 
     demand, this cohort struggled while more educated workers 
     scored jobs and promotions and rose on the economic ladder.
       High school dropouts make up 7.2 percent of the labor 
     force, and some experts doubted they and other low-skilled 
     workers would ever fully recover from the effects of the 
     recession, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of economics at 
     the University of Michigan.
       ``As economists, we worried these workers would be shut out 
     forever,'' she said. ``But the long duration of the recovery 
     has pulled them back in. As the economy adds more jobs, 
     employers have had to dig a little deeper.''


                       reaching fuller employment

       Unemployment among the least educated, the group hit 
     hardest in the recession, has been cut by two-thirds since 
     its peak of almost 16 percent in 2010.
       The improvement in the fortunes of less-educated workers 
     was a highlight in a jobs report that showed continuing gains 
     across a broad variety of sectors.
       Over all in July, employers increased payrolls by 157,000, 
     while the unemployment rate edged downward to 3.9 percent, 
     near the 18-year low achieved in May.
       The data echoed other positive economic news recently, 
     including a report last week showing the economy grew by 4.1 
     percent in the second quarter.
       And the headlines about President Trump's tariffs on steel 
     and aluminum and a widening trade war with China seem to have 
     done little to put a damper on hiring. The manufacturing 
     sector, which is particularly sensitive to exports, was 
     robust, adding 37,000 jobs.
       Although the payroll increase in July was slightly below 
     what Wall Street was expecting, upward revisions for May and 
     June alleviated fears of a slowdown.
       Several economists linked the shortfall to the shutdown of 
     Toys ``R'' Us, and the loss of 32,000 jobs at sporting goods, 
     book and hobby stores last month.
       On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve upgraded its view of the 
     economy's underlying condition from ``solid'' to ``strong.'' 
     The central bank remains on course to raise interest rates 
     twice more this year, in September and December, to avert 
     overheating.
       Other indicators suggest the recovery is finally extending 
     its reach. The Labor Department's broadest measure of 
     unemployment, which includes workers forced to take part-time 
     jobs because full-time positions are unavailable, fell to 7.5 
     percent in July, the lowest since 2001.
       All this has translated into better economic opportunities 
     for workers without a college degree, who account for a 
     majority of the work force. It is a contingent that was 
     championed by Mr. Trump during his presidential campaign, and 
     one that both parties want to appeal to in the midterm 
     elections in November.
       The White House was quick to note that the economy is in 
     the midst of the longest monthly streak of job growth in 
     history.
       And after 94 consecutive months of job creation, bosses and 
     human resource departments are recalibrating their 
     requirements.
       ``You definitely get the sense that employers are willing 
     to look at workers they haven't looked at in the past,'' said 
     Martha Gimbel, director of economic research at Indeed.com, 
     the employment website.
       Unemployed Americans who might not have put feelers out in 
     the past are also venturing back into the hunt for a job, she 
     said. On Indeed's search engine, much of the growth in 
     queries lately has been for positions like full-time cashier, 
     mobile home park manager, maintenance person and fulfillment 
     associate.
       ``This is an indicator that low-skilled workers are seeing 
     opportunities for themselves in the labor market,'' Ms. 
     Gimbel said.
       Until recently at Steel Ceilings in Johnstown, Ohio, the 
     company's president, Rick Sandor, insisted on a couple of 
     years' experience in metal fabrication before considering 
     applicants. But he's had a harder time lately finding workers 
     for his company, where shifts run from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 
     temporary positions start at $14 per hour.
       He now settles for candidates who show mechanical skills, 
     like carpentry or heating and cooling repair. Mr. Sandor is 
     willing to waive the requirement for a high school diploma as 
     well and has even hired applicants with what he terms 
     ``minor'' prison sentences.
       ``If a person was truly trying to get their life back 
     together, we thought it would be helpful to offer them a 
     job,'' he said.
       Unemployment for less-skilled workers has been dropping for 
     several years, with a pickup in hiring in sectors like 
     manufacturing, construction and parts of health care. And to 
     be sure, the month-to-month figures for unemployment among 
     high school dropouts are volatile.
       But the long-term trend is clear, as is hiring among the 
     sectors responsible for it. Last month, the leisure and 
     hospitality field recorded a 40,000 gain in positions, with 
     half of that coming from restaurants.
       For example, Buffalo Wings & Rings, a restaurant chain with 
     60 locations in 13 states, has been stepping up hiring and 
     opening new restaurants.
       Many outlets have seen double-digit sales growth over the 
     past year, and some are up as much as 40 percent, said Nader 
     Masadeh, the company's chief executive. The tax cuts that 
     took effect in January are playing a role, Mr. Masadeh said--
     most families may have gotten a relatively small tax cut, but 
     it is enough to fuel a few more nights out.
       ``People feel good. They're going out and spending more 
     money,'' he said. ``In our segment, $50 feeds you and your 
     family.''
       Still, the hot economy brings challenges of its own. At an 
     annual gathering of the company's franchisees in June, Mr. 
     Masadeh said, he was bombarded with questions about how to 
     retain talent when workers can readily walk out the door and 
     find another job. And costs are rising throughout his 
     business.
       ``Right now the economy is great, but we're also seeing 
     higher construction costs, higher commodity items, shortages 
     of labor, so there's always something that counterbalances 
     something else,'' he said.
       That pressure, however, has not resulted in much fatter 
     paychecks for most workers. The Labor Department said average 
     hourly earnings ticked modestly higher in July, putting the 
     annual rise at 2.7 percent. That's below the pace of 
     inflation in recent months.
       One reason for the lack of big raises is that a substantial 
     number of workers remain on the sidelines, including the 
     less-skilled ones who are now gradually coming back, said 
     Simona Mocuta, senior economist with State Street Global 
     Advisors.
       ``We are bringing unemployment way below 4.5 percent, which 
     the Fed considers full employment,'' Ms. Mocuta said. ``But 
     we are getting very modest wage inflation. This is an issue 
     not just for the U.S., but in every other developed market.''
       ``Because the labor market is tight, less-educated workers 
     have more of a chance of getting hired,'' she added. ``For 
     people with the highest level of education, it's easier to 
     find jobs even when the economy isn't doing well.''
       A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 4, 2018, 
     on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Robust 
     Recovery Lifting Laborers Hit the Hardest.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All across this great Nation there are people who were 
tired of the loss of jobs in this country, the movement of jobs 
overseas, the continuation of a tax policy that did not allow jobs and 
money that was earned by American companies to come back here.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  September 27, 2018, on Page H9104, the following appeared: All 
across this great Nation there are people who were tired of the 
loss of jobs in this country, the movement of jobs overseas, the 
continuation of a tax policy that did not allow jobs and money 
that was earned by American companies to come back here.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. SESSIONS. All 
across this great Nation there are people who were tired of the 
loss of jobs in this country, the movement of jobs overseas, the 
continuation of a tax policy that did not allow jobs and money 
that was earned by American companies to come back here.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
 This is what we have created a change in, and this is the essence of 
the argument: whether we, the free enterprise system, are going to win 
                 or whether it will be the government.
  I think today it is obvious to the American people that the 
Republican Party is on the side of the free enterprise system, small 
business, entrepreneurship, and people who want to be left alone, but 
make their lives work and make their communities work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense to suggest that somehow Democrats don't 
want the economy to work well. The difference here is we want the 
economy to work well for everyone, not just those at the top. Eighty-
three percent of the benefits in their tax scam go to the top 1 percent 
of this country. The people who are struggling are those in the middle 
and those struggling to get in the middle.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Speaker and to 
the minority leader from Feeding America, which basically says very 
clearly that the Republican tax bill `` . . . did not prioritize 
assisting those taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, 
and as a result the new law provides little direct, tangible benefit to 
the individuals and families served by Feeding America.''

[[Page H9105]]

                                              Feeding America,

                                               September 25, 2018.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We write to share 
     Feeding America's views about ``Tax Reform 2.0'' and the 
     legislation recently approved by the House Ways and Means 
     Committee. We previously expressed our concerns about the Tax 
     Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) and its impact on the millions of 
     Americans facing hunger in every community across our 
     country, and do not believe making its provisions permanent 
     would ease the burden on those individuals and families
       As the nation's largest private response to domestic 
     hunger, and the country's third largest charitable 
     organization, Feeding America works to advance public 
     policies that support food insecure individuals and families 
     and that expand the resources necessary for them to access 
     nutritious food. Given that the aggregate annual food budget 
     shortfall for the more than 41 million food insecure 
     individuals in the United States now stands at more than $21 
     billion, our highest priority is protecting the federal 
     nutrition programs that help these families access the 
     resources and nutrition needed to succeed.
       At the same time, a large percentage of individuals, 
     including children, who struggle with hunger fall outside the 
     public safety net, underscoring the profound need for private 
     food assistance. In 2016, more than a quarter of food 
     insecure individuals nationwide lived in households that 
     earned too much to qualify for most federal nutrition 
     assistance programs. For these working families, the 
     generosity of individuals and corporations makes possible 
     vital food assistance that might not otherwise be available.
       Regrettably, H.R. 1 did not prioritize assisting those 
     taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, and as 
     a result the new law proves little direct, tangible benefit 
     to the individuals and families served by Feeding America. 
     According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) beginning 
     in 2021 taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $30,000 per 
     year will see an increase in their average tax rate, a 
     circumstance that will apply to all taxpayers earning less 
     than $75,000 by 2027.
       Additionally, changes to the standard deduction and the 
     availability of itemized deductions have effectively 
     eliminated the charitable deduction for 28.5 million 
     taxpayers, according to JCT. The result will be a decline in 
     charitable giving of more than $17 billion per year, 
     according to a recent American Enterprise Institute study, 
     with human service charities likely to be especially hard 
     hit. Of the 28.5 million taxpayers expected to no longer file 
     itemized returns, 24.6 million earn less than $200,000 per 
     year. Donors with incomes below $200,000 are responsible for 
     62% of annual charitable giving to all human needs charities.
       Simply put, the loss of this century-old giving incentive 
     will have a devastating effect on a wide range of charitable 
     programs and services delivered in communities across the 
     country, including those that provide much-needed food 
     assistance to hungry individuals and families who are not 
     otherwise benefitting from the new tax law.
       H R. 1 represented a missed opportunity to provide relief 
     for the millions of Americans who struggle to put food on the 
     table, and we do not support making its provisions permanent. 
     We do, however, encourage you to undertake Tax Reform 2.0 
     with the aim of enacting legislation that eases the burdens 
     on lower-income working families, continues to encourage 
     Americans to give generously to charity, and ensures the 
     government has the resources necessary to meet our collective 
     obligations to provide for the health and well-being of our 
     neighbors and our communities.
       We hope to serve as a resource to you as this process 
     unfolds, and we look forward to the opportunity to share with 
     you proposed tax code changes that we believe will have a 
     positive impact on the people we serve.
           Sincerely,
       Alabama Food Bank Association (AL); All Faiths Food Bank; 
     Arkansas Foodbank (AR); Atlanta Community Food Bank (GA); 
     Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, Inc. (VA); California Association 
     of Food Banks (CA); Capital Area Food Bank (DC/MD/VA); 
     Central California Food Bank (CA); Central Pennsylvania Food 
     Bank (PA); Central Texas Food Bank (TX); City Harvest (NY); 
     Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma (OK); Community Food 
     Warehouse of Mercer County (PA); Connecticut Food Bank (CT); 
     Eastern Illinois Foodbank (IL); Facing Hunger Foodbank (WV/
     KY/OH); Feeding America; Feeding America Southwest Virginia 
     (VA); Feeding Indiana's Hungry (IN).
       Feeding San Diego (CA); Feeding South Dakota (SD); Feeding 
     the Gulf Coast (AL/FL/MS); Feeding Wisconsin (WI); FeedMore 
     (VA); Food Bank Association of New York State (NY); Food Bank 
     Council of Michigan (MI); Food Bank for Larimer County (CO); 
     Food Bank for the Heartland (NE/IA); Food Bank of Central and 
     Eastern North Carolina (NC); Food Bank of Central New York 
     (NY); Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano (CA); Food Bank of 
     East Texas (TX); Food Bank of Iowa (IA); Food Bank of 
     Lincoln, Inc. (NE); Food Bank of Northern Indiana (IN); Food 
     Bank of Northern Nevada (NV/CA); Food Bank of the Golden 
     Crescent (TX); Food Bank of the Rio Grande Valley (TX).
       Food Bank of the Rockies (CO/WY); Food Bank of the Southern 
     Tier (NY); Food Bank of West Central Texas (TX); Food Finders 
     Food Bank, Inc. (IN); Food Lifeline (WA); FOOD Share of 
     Ventura County (CA); Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia and 
     the Eastern Shore (VA); Foodlink, Inc. (NY); Forgotten 
     Harvest (MI); Fulfill (NJ); Georgia Food Bank Association 
     (GA); Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana (IN); God's Pantry Food 
     Bank, Inc. (KY); Good Shepherd Food Bank (ME); Greater 
     Chicago Food Depository (IL); Greater Cleveland Food Bank, 
     Inc. (OH); Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank (PA); Harry 
     Chapin Food Bank of Southwest Florida (FL); Harvesters--The 
     Community Food Network (MO/KS); Island Harvest (NY); Kentucky 
     Association of Food Banks (KY).
       Long Island Cares (NY); Los Angeles Regional Food Bank 
     (CA); Mid-Ohio Foodbank (OH); Mid-South Food Bank (TN/AR/MS); 
     Montana Food Bank Network (MT); Mountaineer Food Bank (WV); 
     New Hampshire Food Bank (NH); North Texas Food Bank (TX); 
     Northern Illinois Food Bank (IL); Ohio Association of 
     Foodbanks (OH); Oregon Food Bank (OR/WA); Ozarks Food Harvest 
     (MO); Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York (NY); 
     Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma (OK); Rhode Island Community 
     Food Bank (RI); Roadrunner Food Bank (NM); San Antonio Food 
     Bank (TX); Second Harvest Community Food Bank (MO/KS); Second 
     Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida (FL); Second Harvest 
     Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee (TN); Second Harvest Food 
     Bank of Northwest North Carolina (NC).
       Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (CA); Second 
     Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (CA); 
     Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wisconsin (WI); Second 
     Harvest Heartland (MN/WI); Second Harvest Northern Lakes Food 
     Bank (MN/WI); Shared Harvest Foodbank (OH); Southeast 
     Missouri Food Bank (MO); Southeast Ohio Foodbank (OH); 
     Southeast Texas Food Bank (TX); St Louis Area Foodbank (MO/
     IL); The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts (MA); The 
     Foodbank, Inc. (OH); The Greater Boston Food Bank (MA); The 
     Idaho Foodbank (ID); Three Square Food Bank (NV); Treasure 
     Coast Food Bank (FL); Tri-State Food Bank, Inc (IN/IL/KY); 
     Utah Food Bank (UT); Vermont Foodbank (VT); Virginia 
     Peninsula Foodbank (VA); Weld Food Bank (CO); West Ohio Food 
     Bank (OH); Westmoreland County Food Bank, Inc. (PA); 
     Worcester County Food Bank (MA).

  Mr. McGOVERN. Feeding America is the preeminent organization that 
feeds hungry families in this country. We have a hunger problem in this 
country. Nothing in this bill today or the bill that the Republicans 
passed previously does anything to help those people.
  So yes, we want the economy to work well, but for everybody. Not just 
the rich, but we want it to work well for those in the middle and those 
struggling to get in the middle. We don't want to embrace a tax scam 
package where 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. They 
may be good contributors, but that doesn't represent the majority of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, the 
Special Counsel Independence Act. This vital legislation will allow the 
people's House to demonstrate that we as a body are capable of putting 
America's interests over partisan politics.
  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 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
to discuss his proposal.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here because, earlier this week, we 
were confronted with the threat of Deputy Attorney General Rod 
Rosenstein's firing.
  On Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was summoned to the White House, with 
rumors swirling that he had resigned or was about to be fired. Today, 
he was scheduled to meet with the President. But yesterday, the 
President said he may not fire him. He prefers not to, but he may. And 
he may meet with Mr. Rosenstein or not.
  Mr. Rosenstein is directly responsible for Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller's investigation into alleged links between the Russian 
Government and the Trump campaign, as well as other related work, now 
in the Southern District of New York in the National Security Division 
of the Department of Justice, that could have a profound effect on the 
integrity of elections to come.

[[Page H9106]]

  The fear is that, if the President fires Mr. Rosenstein, a new Acting 
Attorney General will take steps to end the investigation by Mr. 
Mueller in order to protect President Trump and his associates. It is 
unacceptable for a law enforcement project of this magnitude to turn on 
the employment status of one official.
  As we have all seen, President Trump has spent his Presidency 
undermining every effort to understand what happened during the 2016 
elections. He has shown no interest in safeguarding the 2018 elections 
from ongoing attacks by foreign adversaries. Instead, he attacks the 
intelligence community; attacks the Department of Justice; attacks 
career civil servants; and attacks Special Counsel Mueller, complaining 
about what he calls a ``total witch hunt'' and calling for the Attorney 
General to end the investigation.
  This is not a witch hunt. In a relatively short period of time, 
investigators have secured multiple convictions and guilty pleas from 
key Trump campaign personnel, including the President's campaign 
manager, his deputy campaign manager, his national security adviser, 
and others.
  But President Trump and his allies in this Chamber are engaged in a 
broader strategy to undermine the legitimacy of any finding, guilty 
plea, or any conviction that may come out of the investigation. 
President Trump will take any opportunity to reign in, suppress, or end 
the Special Counsel's investigation.
  We know this because President Trump has told us so. He told us that 
he fired the FBI Director because of the ``Russia thing.'' He is 
reported to have ordered the firing of Robert Mueller at least twice. 
He attacks his own Attorney General for quite properly recusing himself 
from the investigation. His surrogates compare the FBI to the Gestapo, 
and call for the police to raid the Justice Department.
  Fortunately, as a coequal branch of government, we have a way to 
protect our law enforcement officers from these threats and to protect 
the country from this barrage of misinformation from the White House.
  H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, would 
protect the Special Counsel from being unjustly fired and would allow 
for the courts to review any political interference. This is bipartisan 
legislation that has 126 cosponsors and is identical to Republican 
legislation that has a number of Republican cosponsors.
  The Senate counterpart to H.R. 5476 was introduced by Senators 
Graham, Booker, Coons, and Tillis, and passed the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on April 26, 2018, by a vote of 14-7.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NADLER. We have been calling on the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee to bring this important legislation before the 
committee for a vote, but he has refused to act.
  Democrats have taken the unusual step of invoking House rule XI, 
clause 2(c)(2) to force a markup. But other Republicans on the 
committee have sat on their hands and refused to join in this demand. 
But for three Republicans, the Judiciary Committee would be forced to 
consider this legislation.
  We cannot wait any longer. The stakes are too great. That is why I 
offer this proposal.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not without notice to the American people that the 
discussion may be on great economic policy that is working for people, 
we are attacked here in Washington on the floor, and then the subject 
changes to something else, rather than the overwhelming evidence of how 
we are doing.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion I put in the Record, that New 
York Times article about those at the very bottom who had been left 
behind before, under the previous administration's tax increase, to 
where they lost jobs because we lost jobs in America with the massive 
spending spree that took place by President Obama and the Democratic 
Party.
  I am pleased to report not just what was said on August the 18th by 
The New York Times, but even today. African American and Hispanic 
unemployment rates are at some of the lowest rates that they have ever 
been.
  The Bureau of Labor Standards even passed out a report about the 
weekly unemployment claims. Those are the claims where people who were 
seeking jobs, we count those up across the country. They are at the 
lowest rates since 1969. That means, even though we have a larger 
amount of people in the country, a fewer numberwise--not percentage, 
numberwise--are seeking unemployment compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is working. There is success in the marketplace. What 
Republicans did is so good that we want it to continue, because people 
who have their jobs tend to want to protect those jobs. But the 
protection of the jobs is being done by this administration to make 
sure that we can sell more of our products overseas.
  About 40 percent of everything made in this country is made for 
export. We are for a larger export market. We are for jobs in this 
country. Over $50 billion has flowed back into the United States from 
overseas as a result of what we did last December 18 with the tax bill.
  The overwhelming success of people back at home, wherever we are 
from, is apparent. They are working. They have got an opportunity. 
Their savings are increasing.
  All over my hometown of Dallas, Texas, there are companies after 
companies after companies after companies that have reinvested in their 
businesses to make sure that not just ergonomics or new ways to 
mechanize are employed in their businesses, but, actually, many 
companies paid, doubling down the amount that they had contributed to a 
retirement fund or to a 401(k) or to giving company stock or, as in the 
case of many companies in Dallas, gave a $1,000 bonus and then said to 
the employee: For the $1,000 bonus I give each of the employees, I want 
you to know we are going to reinvest in making our business up to date 
and better, too.
  So, Mr. Speaker, no wonder--no wonder--the other side, as they come 
to the table today with an equal opportunity for time, changes the 
discussion point to something that is extraneous from how successful 
this tax bill has been. So we will stand here until the end of our time 
and say: We need to make it permanent because it works.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are offering this 
procedural motion is because the Republicans run this House like Putin. 
We are shut out of everything. So this is our only opportunity to try 
to get some important business done.
  The Republicans can spend every day trying to pass more tax cuts for 
their wealthy friends and big corporations, but maybe--just maybe--we 
can do something useful like protecting our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the 115th Congress will soon come to an end. 
There is much work that we will leave undone, but none so consequential 
to our democracy as the failure to pass legislation to protect Special 
Counsel Mueller's investigation from further interference by the 
President. Today may be our last chance to avoid the constitutional 
crisis that will come should this President fire Mueller or Rosenstein 
or otherwise act to obstruct justice while we are in recess.
  This is our opportunity, our responsibility, to uphold the rule of 
law and to make clear that no one, even this President--or any 
President--is above the law.
  My colleagues, the fig leaf is gone. If we leave this work undone, 
after all this President has said and done, if he fires individuals 
responsible for an investigation into which the President himself may 
be implicated, no Member of this Chamber can say they did not see it 
coming.
  For months, this President and his allies in Congress have sought to 
interfere with, obstruct, and manipulate this investigation:
  They have selectively leaked or declassified documents;
  They have sought to impeach the Deputy Attorney General to give the 
President cover to fire him;

[[Page H9107]]

  They have watched in silence as this President has demanded loyalty 
and public pronouncements of devotion from the Justice Department and 
law enforcement officials while he has denigrated judges based on their 
ethnicity, while he has told us that we cannot believe our free press, 
that we cannot believe what we see and what we hear, but that we can 
only believe him.
  All of this is an affront to the rule of law, and all of it has been 
met with almost absolute silence from my colleagues in the GOP, with 
the exception of a few brave people like John McCain.
  This is an administration that says the truth is not truth, that they 
are entitled to their own alternate facts.
  There is nothing more corrosive to a democracy than the idea that 
there is no such thing as truth, that the President is the law, that he 
is entitled to an Attorney General who will protect him and not the 
country or our system of justice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, by defeating this previous question, we can 
bring to the floor a bipartisan bill to protect the special counsel's 
investigation.
  Wake up, my colleagues. Our democracy, our rule of law, is under 
assault. Stand up to this President. Do your duty.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat this previous question so that we can immediately take up Mr. 
Nadler's legislation that would protect Bob Mueller's special counsel 
investigation.
  The rule of law right now is under attack by a wrecking-ball 
President who does not respect it, who has fired his investigator and, 
as we speak, seeks to hire a judge who would protect him.
  But Bob Mueller, despite the attacks that I hear in this Chamber, is 
making progress. His investigation started in May 2017. Since May 2017, 
he has obtained a lot of guilty pleas and indictments.
  October 5, 2017: a guilty plea against General Michael Flynn, 
campaign adviser and national security adviser to Donald Trump;
  December 1, 2017: the statement of offense from Michael Flynn 
detailing what he had done;
  October 5, 2017: statement of offense and guilty plea from George 
Papadopoulos, senior adviser to candidate Trump;
  February 2, 2018: indictment against Richard Gates, adviser to the 
President;
  February 23, 2018: guilty plea from Richard Gates;
  February 12, 2018: guilty plea from Richard Pinedo;
  February 16, 2018: guilty plea from Alex van der Zwaan;
  Indictment, February 16, 2018, against 16 Russians for weaponizing 
social media to help the Trump campaign, including the Internet 
Research Association, directly tied to Vladimir Putin;
  February 22, 2018: superseding indictment against Paul Manafort, 
campaign chairman for Donald Trump and Richard Gates;
  February 23, 2018: guilty plea from Richard Gates;
  June 6, 2018: superseding indictment against Paul Manafort, chairman 
to Donald Trump, and Konstantin Kilimnik, associated with the Russian 
intelligence services;
  September 14, 2018: guilty plea, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, 
just about 1 month after he was found guilty on a number of counts by a 
jury of his peers;
  And, finally, July 13, 2018: 12 Russians indicted for the hacking and 
stealing of Donald Trump's opponent's emails.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, the special counsel is 
making progress. The best thing we can do to uphold the rule of law in 
this country, to allow him to continue to investigate who attacked us, 
who worked with the Russians, and to make sure we know all we can do to 
protect this great democracy is to protect that investigation, to not 
allow the President to threaten it, and to do our job: protect our 
great democracy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for all the 
lawyers in the House on the Democratic side to come down and argue 
their case, but I would politely disagree with them.
  The way you save this great democracy is by making it economically 
sound and powerful and prepared so that we can pay for this government, 
so that we can understand that America's greatest days lie in our 
future, so that we can understand it is the American people who want 
and need to make success, that they want their dream to succeed, not 
just the government.
  What we are hearing today is they have abdicated this debate today 
from what was an economic debate all the way to a political debate. 
Economics, you see, has that side of it where people can see what works 
and what doesn't work, and that is why they have abdicated this fight 
today on the floor. The fight that they thought they were bringing is 
not about the success or failure of this; it is about another issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that America is economically 
stronger. We have more people working today than in the history of the 
country. There are companies that are making money, and there are 
employees who are making money, and there are employees who are 
successful.
  When that happens, Mr. Speaker, you get an increase in take-home pay, 
and that is also what Republicans understand about what we have done: 
an increase in the amount of take-home pay to where the American people 
gain benefit not just for their hard work, but for their families; to 
pay for their families to be able to go to a Boy Scout outing; to make 
sure they are prepared to send their children to school, so that they 
can pay themselves, not looking to the government to make the payment 
for them; not looking for a handout, but, rather, making sure that 
people have the dignity of work, the dignity of opportunity, an honest 
day's work, an honest day's pay, an opportunity for the free enterprise 
system, the American Dream, to work.
  That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about the 
success and the limiting success. And the limiting success is, if we 
make these tax policies permanent, it creates an opportunity for wiser 
choices, wiser decisions, wiser long-term attributes of success, not 
for the government, but for the American people.

                              {time}  1300

  And that is what the debate is on this side: helping the middle class 
of this country to achieve a strong footing to where they can make 
their American Dream work not only for them, but for their children and 
grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from Texas, tax 
cuts for the rich and big corporations aren't going to protect this 
country from another attack by the Russians on our elections and on 
democracy.
  But here is the deal: You can do both. You can debate your tax scam 
2.0 for the rich, and if you vote to defeat the previous question, we 
can also vote to protect the Mueller investigation.
  So we can do both, and I hope my colleagues will vote to defeat the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of the House Rules 
Committee.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, the GOP tax scam has been nothing but a 
giveaway to millionaires and corporations. This Republican majority is 
adding trillions--trillions--of dollars to our

[[Page H9108]]

national debt, debt that our children and grandchildren will have to 
pay for for years to come, trillions in debt that will put Medicare and 
Social Security at risk.
  Already, we can't provide the minimum funding to the ACA, making it 
harder for our constituents to get health insurance and access to care.
  Now, how are the Republicans trying to pay for this debt? By 
attacking--by attacking--the hardworking taxpayers like those that I 
represent in the great State of California. That is right, so 
millionaires and corporations can have a tax break. I call that welfare 
for the most affluent people and corporations in America at the cost of 
the hardworking taxpayers in California.
  And let me say that again. Millions of Californians will see their 
taxes increase with this GOP tax scam.
  Now, today, as if we haven't already done enough, the Republican 
majority is voting to make this tax increase permanent, a permanent tax 
increase to our hardworking taxpayers.
  California is the fifth largest global economy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, California is the fifth largest global 
economy and a donor State. We should be trying to make every other 
State more like the great State of California.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the frailty of the arguments from my opponents is 
staggering. The newest report out, ``the ACA healthcare market 
stabilized nationwide for most customers,'' and yet we are told we are 
not even funding it. It is funded by the government. It is mandatory 
spending. But the good part is is that they now have an idea of who is 
in the marketplace and what those correct rates are, and it is 
stabilizing.
  It is stabilizing because what we have done is made the opportunity 
available for people to have a job to pay for their healthcare. And the 
ability to have a job means that you not only have a chance to pay for 
your car, your home or apartment, your daughter or your son's college, 
but you also have an opportunity to pay for your own insurance, your 
own healthcare, your own needs to take care of your own family.
  This is where we see America, right now, has the largest number of 
people who are employed in America. Every single economic and social 
indicator indicates that more people at the highest level are employed. 
More people at the highest level are having an opportunity to get up 
and go to work, a chance to make their lives and their family better.
  This is the essence of what we are talking about today: making life 
better for people, giving them a better opportunity back home to have a 
job that is available.
  In Dallas, Texas, where I am from, last week, 2 weeks ago, we had a 
seminar whereby people talked about and demonstrated what this economy 
is doing. I had several employers who stood up and said to the media, 
that was never reported:

       We have 10 jobs that are available at a starting salary of 
     $60,000, but you have to be able to pass a drug test and you 
     have to come to work every day. We will train you. We will do 
     the training. We don't need the government or someone else to 
     do that, but you have to do two things: You have to be able 
     to pass the drug test, and you have got to come to work every 
     day, and you have got to be able to go be willing to be a 
     part of a team that is about your success and theirs also.

  What a great deal the free enterprise offers today. Instead of us 
begging for jobs and wishing they were here, they abound, Mr. Speaker. 
It is called great economics. It is called making America great again. 
That is why we want to make it permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from 
Texas how many more speakers he has on his side?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I kind of figured, if this was so popular, 
that there would be tons of Republicans down here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, hallelujah. Let the Republican majority tell 
it. The American people are just going to be so thrilled with tax scam 
2.0 where we permanently lock in obscene tax advantages for 
corporations and the wealthy, where we lock in inequality, where we 
directly threaten Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the American people are just going to be bereft of 
this economic security and retirement security, but they are going to 
spontaneously break out in a Depression-era George Gershwin opera, like 
I did on the stage of North Division High School:

     I got plenty o' nuttin',
     And nuttin's plenty for me.
     I got no car, got no misery.

  Meanwhile, the folks with plenty of plenty are getting 80 percent of 
this tax cut, increasing the debt by another $3 trillion in just 3 
years' time.
  Mr. Speaker, no singing, no dancing, no tax scam. My constituents 
want our country's wealth back.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of song and dance on the floor, but it is 
revisionist history. What some of our colleagues have forgotten is that 
the African American unemployment during President Obama's Presidency 
was 15.5 percent. It was called misery. It was called no job. It was 
called unemployment. It was called more government assistance. It was 
called, unfortunately, demise.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have done by passing the tax cut is to make sure 
that employers had an opportunity to hire employees. All across this 
country, there is a marketplace available to people who were ready and 
willing to come to work, and they have. The figures are, to us, as 
Republican, normal and regular.
  We were told by President Obama and Ms. Pelosi: ``We can't get the 
4.2 percent GDP rate.'' That is right. You can't get to 4.2 because 
your policies and procedures won't let the country do that. We are 
going to be stuck in the ones.
  But, Mr. Speaker, what happened is that a new energy abounded in this 
country, and it is called optimism and opportunity and success and 
redevelopment of ideas to bring the American spirit back to the top. 
And that was, instead of Uncle Sam telling us what to do, we are 
getting that opportunity to have the success back home.
  That is why the largest number of African Americans ever in the 
marketplace or, thereto, the largest number of women, the largest 
number of Hispanics in the marketplace today. This is yet another 
reason, Mr. Speaker, why Republicans are on the floor talking about the 
economy and my friends are talking about another issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to be very clear about this. I will be asking 
all 435 Members of Congress, for them to see the reality and the truth 
of what is available back home, and that is opportunity can abound for 
a longer period of time with more success and more opportunity.
  The next chance to make sure that the contract that is won by their 
company or the next successful quarter or the next opportunity that 
they get to get a pay raise can come because we are making sure that 
the free enterprise system is sound and secure for the future.
  And that is how you save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: by 
working today and protecting American jobs. It is an effort that the 
Republican Party has had, will have, has today, and we can't wait to 
see the vote to see who is for the free enterprise system of seeing 
that success.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just 8 months ago, the Republicans jammed through their 
massive, unpaid-for tax cut. Not a single Democrat voted for that bill, 
and for good reason. Nonpartisan experts told us that the tax cut would 
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and big corporations while 
threatening our fiscal and economic health. It would

[[Page H9109]]

add more than $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. And the newest reports 
on the impact of the tax law further confirm those dire warnings: 
Corporate profits have soared, along with stock buybacks, while 
working-class wages remain stagnant and income and wealth inequality 
continue to grow.
  Yet today, Republicans want to go even further, pushing their tax cut 
2.0 legislation. It is not a surprise that they are extending the 
provisions of their tax bill. The expirations were always gimmicks to 
hide the true cost of the tax cut and evade the constraints on 
reconciliation bills.
  This new legislation, once again, benefits the wealthiest Americans 
and adds trillions of dollars more to the Nation's debt in decades to 
come, further jeopardizing the Nation's already rocky long-term fiscal 
outlook.
  This new tax cut 2.0 package, just like the one before it, is being 
rushed through the House with no hearings and no input from the 
American people. The Republican tax cut 2.0 legislation is another 
irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy that threatens our long-term 
fiscal and economic health, and we know how that story ends.
  As Republicans have often demonstrated, they are committed to cutting 
more taxes for the rich, fretting when deficits rise, and then 
attacking crucial programs American families rely on, such as Medicare 
and Social Security, to pay for the debt increase.
  Let's not add more to this three-step process. This is not the time 
to rush through another round of tax cuts. The rule before us would 
allow for passage of this irresponsible legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the American Dream should be available to everybody: 
young, old, African American, Hispanic, Native American, even those 
people who have come to our shores. To make America work, American 
business has to work.
  Making American business work--which is why we have business schools, 
why we have college-educated people, why we have entrepreneurship, why 
we have small business owners, why we have people who dedicate 
themselves to that free enterprise system--comes about as a result of 
their opportunity to work within a series of rules, regulations, and 
tax policy that is balanced.
  A balanced tax policy would tell you that, if you have the highest 
taxes in the marketplace, your opportunity levels diminish. Likewise, 
it would say and tell you that, if you do not pay an honest day's work 
for an honest day's pay, you would not have employees and would be 
searching to try and make up that deficit another way.

                              {time}  1315

  Today, American business and American workers have more work than we 
can get done in 1 day, and numbers of orders and opportunities for our 
future abound. That is what we are here about also.
  We are here about the youngest of people who we have in our midst who 
are second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth grade. We are about those 
people who are in college, who are studying hard because they want to 
be a part of a workforce. They want to be part of making their dream 
better.
  But if there are no jobs, that is an indictment on this body. That is 
an indictment of elected officials and of an administration, many of 
them unelected, but who have a policy that fits their political 
ideology, rather than what is intended for success of people back home.
  Today, I am going to ask every Member of this body, and I will do it 
right now, to please understand that you will have an opportunity to 
vote to make what we have today even more successful for a longer 
period of time; and to grow the amount of GDP; to grow the amount of 
investment; to believe in the American worker; to expect the 
opportunity for there to be an equal marketplace share, where the 
employer and the employee can both gain, not only in the ability to pay 
their own bills, but the ability to sustain what we do.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not show the short side of this and talk about the 
negatives or the frailties or the things that really, I don't think, 
will come to bear, but let's talk about the success. The success is 
that we are going to move our stock market, as it is doing today, with 
the evidence that they have that we can, as a body, move our business.
  Just this week, we had an opportunity to do what hadn't been done for 
21 years. Those pesky Republicans in the House and the Senate and our 
President are going to sign a bill funding 80 percent of the government 
to avoid not just a continuing resolution, but to get it done on time, 
expecting this government, in their balance, to do their job that we 
have entrusted them with.
  Today, we are taking part on the other part of that equation, to the 
free enterprise system saying: Keep producing jobs. Keep doing the 
things that small business does; whether you are in Weatherford, Texas, 
and own a car dealership, and you sell your product and make it 
available to customers back home, and you expect them to pay and your 
product to sell and win, or whether we expect to produce products that 
we sell overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the other half of the equation. This same week 
that we gave 80 percent of the government, including the military and 
Health and Human Services, the things that they have asked for and need 
to produce, today, we are asking the other side of the equation, the 
American people, to continue fighting, continue working, continue 
believing, not only in your American Dream, but continue to believe 
that the future of this country is bright and going to be successful 
for you and your family.
  They can drown out the detractors. They can drown out people who 
brought a different idea to the table, because that brought us 15 
percent unemployment for African Americans when we had a President who 
claims he was there for equality also. Equality is a job and an 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am here to urge this House to defeat the 
previous question so that we can hear H.R. 5476, a bipartisan bill to 
protect the Special Counsel, Mr. Mueller.
  It is important for democracy and for the rule of law for which we 
are respected around the globe that Mr. Mueller's investigation goes on 
and not be impeded by the firing of Mr. Rosenstein and the imposition 
of somebody who is inimical to Mr. Mueller's investigation.
  I want to quote Bill Frist, former Republican majority leader in the 
Senate. ``Congress must never abandon its role as an equal branch of 
government. In this moment, that means protecting Mueller's 
investigation. We're at our best as Senators and Republicans when we 
defend our institutions. But more than that, it's our best face as 
Americans.
  ``People around the world admire not just the material well-being of 
the United States but our values, too. The rule of law is something 
many die trying to secure for their countries. We can't afford to 
squander it at home.''
  Defeat the previous question. Protect Robert Mueller.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas one more time, just to make sure there is nobody else who 
wants to speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the gentleman is 
correct. I will be closing for us, so anytime the gentleman chooses to 
do that, he may expend his time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have so diminished this House of 
Representatives. We are being told that tomorrow may be our last day in 
session before the election, that the Republicans will adjourn 2 weeks 
early so they can go home to try to convince voters that they deserve 
to be reelected.
  What we are doing today, this tax scam 2.0, is a joke, because they 
know it is going nowhere in the Senate. They are frightened by the fact 
that their original tax bill is so terribly unpopular, and rightfully 
so, because the American people object to a tax bill where 83 percent 
of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. That is just not fair. People 
understand things like fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, we are asking people to defeat the previous question to 
protect

[[Page H9110]]

the Mueller investigation. Since we are adjourning most likely 
tomorrow, this may be our only time to do it. You can vote to defeat 
the previous question. You can still vote for this tax scam bill, but 
you also can vote on whether or not to protect the Mueller 
investigation. We ought to do that.

  But there is another thing I want Members of both sides to 
appreciate, as this may be the last rule we bring to the floor.
  What we are considering today is record-shattering. The majority 
broke the record for the number of closed rules in Congress earlier 
this year. The record they broke, by the way, was their own.
  This restrictive process has often shut out debates here on the House 
floor that the American people desperately want this Congress to have, 
on issues like gun safety, protecting the Dreamers, and lowering the 
cost of prescription drugs.
  Now, today, the majority is taking is the most closed Congress in 
American history to a whole new level because, tucked inside this 
measure, is the majority's 99th, 100th, and 101st first closed rules of 
this Congress. There has never ever been a moment like this in American 
history, more than 100 closed rules in a single Congress.
  This isn't some arcane legislative matter. Consider what the majority 
has brought under closed rules, things like their first tax scam and 
their disastrous healthcare repeal bill.
  There are still months to go before the 116th Congress begins. Who 
knows what other disasters the majority of President Trump will dream 
up next.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that everything that the House 
considers should be under an open rule. There are times when a closed 
rule might be necessary. But more than 100 closed rules? There is no 
justification for that.
  Now, I don't know who will run this place in January, but if 
Democrats are trusted with the majority, we will have a more 
accommodating process. This place will be run like professionals. Ideas 
will be allowed to come forward, and the House of Representatives will 
actually debate again.
  But we don't have to wait until next year to force a more open 
process. We can start right here today. My Republican colleagues have 
voiced frustration with their majority's closed process. Well, we have 
the chance here to do more than just talk. We can vote.
  So when a closed rule goes down, Speaker Ryan will actually have to 
start upholding his promise of a more open, more inclusive, more 
deliberative, and more participatory process.
  It would be better late than never. While calling for a more open 
process, virtually every Republican voted for every closed rule we have 
considered. The rank and file Republicans are part of the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to take a stand on the 101st 
closed rule, will they ever be able to back up their talk with their 
vote?
  So I ask the majority, as we stand on the doorstep of this dubious 
distinction, join us in voting against this record-shattering closed 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, before I start, could you please advise me 
on how much time remains for me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams). The gentleman from Texas has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that we have to be on the floor today is 
about one thing. They want to make it about something else, and that is 
within their purview and their decision.
  What it is about is whether we are going to continue to have the 
highest rates of employment in this country; the highest and best 
opportunity for people to continue take-home pay increases; the 
opportunity for American jobs, workers, and business to have more work 
than we have employees for; the opportunity to take and have, all 
across this country, the opportunity for reinvestment; the opportunity 
for people to be successful; the opportunity for people who are in 
school today to look up and know they see a bright future.
  That is the way the world sees it, at least I think we do here in 
America, not in Washington. We might be a drug-free work zone up here, 
but what we have is the ability for this majority to keep pushing its 
opportunity for success for the American people.
  So this week, we took care of making sure we fund, on time, perhaps a 
little bit early, the government for next year. But we are also going 
to fund the American people and the free enterprise system.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what a fun day, what a great opportunity for people 
all across schools, and in schools, and people who work to say, one 
party is going to vote for me and one party is going to vote against 
me.
  I am asking every Member to do it, so that we get together on 
economic outlook and view. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out 
against H.R. 6760, the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts 
Acts of 2018, along with the two other bills packaged into what is 
being called Tax Reform 2.0. H.R. 6760 is a continuation of the GOP's 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was pushed into law in December 2017. This 
2017 tax law is a scam on the American public, and the legislation 
before us today is more of the same. The fundamental problem with the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that its goal was never to help the average 
American. Instead, it helps out large corporations and wealthy 
individuals by dramatically decreasing their tax rates. H.R. 6760 
doubles down on these regressive policies, doing nothing to even the 
playing field for millions of working Americans struggling to enter or 
stay in the middle class. Like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R. 6760 
continues to favor high-income individuals over middle- and working-
class Americans.
  To make matters worse, H.R. 6760 adds to the large debt we have as a 
nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 6760 alone 
would increase the deficit by $631 billion over the next ten years. At 
a time when the deficit is already too high, we need to start figuring 
out ways to stop the deficit from growing, not adding to it. A growing 
deficit only means that critical benefits that Americans use every day, 
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be diminished or 
demolished as a way to pay for this unfair and flawed tax legislation. 
Ending crucial benefits that Americans rely on every day is another 
attack on the very people who sent us here.
  Instead of continuing to hurt Americans, Congress must come together 
to create a tax code that is fair for all American workers and the 
middle class. I urge my colleagues to create a tax code that evens out 
the playing field for American workers, strengthens working families, 
and helps our economy benefit all Americans.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 
1084, the rule governing debate for H.R. 6756, the American Innovation 
Act of 2018,'' H.R. 6757 ``Family Savings Act of 2018,'' and H.R. 6760 
``Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018''.
  I must oppose this rule and urge the defeat the previous question, 
not because we do not support innovation for our small businesses and 
entrepreneurs, but because defeating the previous question will enable 
this House to consider and pass H.R. 5476, the ``Special Counsel 
Independence and Integrity Act''.
  This is an opportunity we do not want to misuse.
  For the last sixteen months, our nation has watched as the Special 
Counsel investigating the attack on our democracy during the 2016 
election has returned dozens of indictments against foreign actors 
suspected of interfering in our democracy.
  Tellingly, the investigation has also returned a series of guilty 
pleas, including:
  allocutions from the President's former personal lawyer;
  his campaign chairman;
  his deputy campaign chairman;
  his first national security advisor;
  a top foreign policy advisor, and many more.
  Americans have come to the conclusion that the 2016 election was a 
crime scene.
  The 2018 election could be one too.
  While the Special Counsel--appointed by officials from the Trump 
Administration--has been diligently returning pleas and indictments, 
and unearthing the extraordinary efforts that a hostile foreign power 
had on our election, the President has been busy berating the effort, 
and those whom he believes are assisting in attempts to get at the 
truth of what transpired in the 2016 election.
  Yet, beyond guilty pleas and indictments, the Special Counsel has 
also been performing an essential service for the American people: he 
has been telling the American people a story of how our democracy is 
susceptible to outside influence.
  He has done this by sharing certain, critical facts such as:
  the President's son, son-in-law and campaign manager attended a 
meeting with

[[Page H9111]]

agents of the Russian government promising to have ``dirt'' on the 
President's 2016 opponent, Secretary Hillary Clinton;
  we also learned how Russians funneled money through stalwart 
Republican-leaning organizations to influence our campaign; and
  we learned that Russians selectively leaked and indeed weaponized 
stolen emails in order to influence our electorate.
  Alongside this parade of developments, the American people have 
watched as this president has tried to wrestle control--either 
functionally or formally--of the investigation into the Russian 
interference in the 2016 campaign, and whether and to what extent the 
effort was aided and abetted associates of the Trump Campaign.
  For good reason, Americans are suspicious of this president's ability 
to abide by longstanding norms to which all prior American presidents 
have adhered: the need to abstain from interfering in law enforcement 
investigations.
  Most infamously, the President breached this norm when he fired the 
former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey in 
May 2017.
  Between that date and now, the President has:
  ridiculed the Attorney General, who recused himself from overseeing 
the Russia investigation and, in the process, drew the ire of the 
president;
  terminated or forced the retirements of several senior law 
enforcement officials; and
  has threatened or attempted to take extraordinary steps--like the 
selective dissemination of classified information--for the purposes of 
tainting the investigation into his possible criminal activity.
  Along the way, House Republicans have refused to exercise even the 
slightest amount of oversight on this president or this president.
  One significant way the Congress can do this is by protecting the 
Special Counsel and his investigation.
  This has long been a concern of mine.
  This is why, alongside the Jerry Nadler, the Ranking Member of the 
House Judiciary Committee, I introduced H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel 
Independence and Integrity Act.
  If enacted into law, H.R. 5476 permits a terminated Special Counsel 
to challenge his termination in court and would stay the investigation 
pending the challenge.
  The Special Counsel would be given a notice stating the reasons for 
the removal.
  The matter would be heard by a three judge panel who would determine 
whether the removal was for misconduct, dereliction of duty, 
incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause.
  If it is, the removal is affirmed.
  If it is not, the Special Counsel is reinstated.
  In the face of this president's bellicosity towards the law 
enforcement institutions investigating him, the Special Counsel 
Independence and Integrity Act is a measure of oversight we can place 
on this president, who increasingly feels emboldened to flout 
longstanding norms in the name of covering up his past conduct.
  This is an Article I moment--it is time for all in this chamber and 
across the Capitol in the Senate to seize it.
  Through their elected representatives, the American people must 
harness the constitutional apparatus created by the Framers and provide 
oversight on a president sorely in need of it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An amendment to H. Res. 1084 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5476) to ensure independent investigations and judicial 
     review of the removal of a special counsel, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5476.
                                  ____


        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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 189, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 409]

                               YEAS--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson

[[Page H9112]]


     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
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     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
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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--189

     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.
     Engel
     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)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barletta
     Blackburn
     DesJarlais
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Harper
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Rooney, Thomas J.

                              {time}  1352

  Messrs. SUOZZI, KIHUEN, and Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 410]

                               AYES--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     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
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     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.
     Engel
     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)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)

[[Page H9113]]


     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barletta
     Blackburn
     DesJarlais
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Harper
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Walz

                              {time}  1401

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________