[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.
____________________