[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H12214-H12221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5377, RESTORING TAX FAIRNESS FOR 
                       STATES AND LOCALITIES ACT

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 772 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 772

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5377) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
     limitation on deduction of State and local taxes, 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 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole), 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

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules 
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 772, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and 
Localities Act, under a closed rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. Speaker, SALT has been in law since the 16th Amendment was passed 
in 1913 with few minor adjustments, that is, until 2017, when 
Republicans passed the tax scam law.
  In 2017, the Republicans gave away almost $2 trillion in tax cuts to 
corporations and the wealthy. They paid for this tax scam on the backs 
of hardworking American families. Thirty-six million middle-class 
families saw their taxes increase.
  The average American deducted $12,500 in State and local taxes, or 
SALT, from their Federal taxes before 2017. However, the Republican tax 
bill capped SALT deductions at $10,000, therefore, not fully covering 
what the average American deducts in State and local taxes. This cap 
means that Americans are paying taxes twice on the same dollar earned.
  Our tax system is based on the principle of federalism and 
acknowledges that the Federal Government should not do everything.
  State and local taxes provide funds for critical infrastructure and 
services, such as ensuring quality schools for our kids, fixing our 
roads, and supporting our local law enforcement.
  Local governments know how to meet the unique needs of their 
communities, and the implementation of a SALT deduction cap threatens 
the ability of our local governments to provide these critical 
services.
  The SALT deduction is not a Democratic or Republican issue. Taxpayers 
across the country in both red and blue States benefit from the 
deduction.
  Midwestern States like Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are known for 
their State and local tax contributions. In fact, Wisconsin ranks among 
the top five States in the country, higher than California, for the 
average proportion of a resident's income tax that goes toward State 
and local taxes.
  Whether from California, Wisconsin, or New Jersey, getting rid of the 
SALT cap will benefit Americans across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am supporting H.R. 5377, the Restoring Tax 
Fairness for States and Localities Act. This legislation will raise the 
SALT cap for 2019 to $20,000 for married couples.
  Under the Republican tax bill, the SALT cap is set at $10,000 for a 
household regardless if that household consists of an individual or two 
people filing jointly.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think taxpayers should be punished for being 
married.
  This legislation will completely repeal the SALT cap for 2020 and 
2021, ensuring that Americans are not taxed double on their hard-earned 
money.
  Included in H.R. 5377 are investments in our teachers and law 
enforcement officers. I have heard from southern Californian teachers 
who are working two or three jobs to make ends meet, but they still buy 
supplies for their students: notebooks, chalk, pencils, markers, 
whatever they need.
  Across the country, nearly all teachers report buying school supplies 
for their students with their own money, spending almost $500 on 
average.
  Currently, the tax credit for out-of-pocket expenses for educators is 
$250. This legislation will double the tax credit to $500, matching 
what is actually spent, what teachers spend for their students.
  It also creates a new tax deduction for law enforcement officers, 
firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs related to expenses for uniforms and 
for tuition fees for professional development training. As a former 911 
dispatcher, I can testify to the importance of having well-trained 
first responders.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5377 is about restoring fair tax policies for the 
middle class that have been suffering under the Republican tax bill, 
and I am proud to stand here in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our third rule debate in what has turned out to 
be a pretty eventful and memorable week. Unfortunately, today's debate 
is on a deeply partisan and misguided tax bill.

                              {time}  0915

  H.R. 5377 would temporarily remove the cap on the deduction for State 
and local income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. The bill also 
pays for this temporary tax break for a few by permanently increasing 
the top marginal tax rate.
  What is worse, Mr. Speaker, the permanent tax increase isn't limited 
to individuals but applies to small businesses, as well.
  Two years ago, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This monumental legislation not only 
reformed the corporate tax code to make American business more 
competitive and

[[Page H12215]]

simplified the personal tax code, but it also ensured that the vast 
majority of Americans are getting to keep more of their hard-earned 
money than they did 2 years ago. Between lower tax rates, the expanded 
standard deduction, the child tax credit, and changes to the 
alternative minimum tax, the benefit of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are 
numerous and reach far and wide across the Nation.
  Today, the majority is seeking to undo some of that progress and is 
seeking to push a temporary tax break that will only benefit a few 
wealthy individuals in a few States. The State and local tax deduction, 
or SALT deduction, as it is called, primarily benefits only a select 
group of individuals, generally wealthy people in the top 20 percent of 
income, in a few high-tax States, who own expensive homes. H.R. 5377 
would allow these individuals to temporarily claim an unlimited SALT 
deduction for only the years 2020 and 2021.
  Mr. Speaker, the benefits of this bill will overwhelmingly go to 
those who are already wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, the top 1 percent of households would receive 56 
percent of the benefit of repealing the SALT deduction cap. Let me 
repeat that: The top 1 percent get 56 percent of the benefits of 
repealing the SALT deduction cap. The top 5 percent of households will 
receive over 80 percent of the benefit. Again, let me repeat that: The 
top 5 percent of income earners in the country are going to get 80 
percent of the benefit of this bill. Amazing. The bottom 80 percent of 
all households would receive precisely 4 percent of the benefit. 
Amazing.
  What is worse, in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we have already acted to 
offset the reduced SALT deduction by doubling the standard deduction. 
In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we doubled the standard deduction from 
$12,000 to $24,000 for married couples, which offset an increase 
resulting from lowering the SALT deduction cap for a vast majority of 
taxpayers.
  Before TCJA, 30 percent of all taxpayers itemized deductions and 
could potentially benefit from a SALT deduction. Today, just under 90 
percent of all taxpayers take the standard deduction. This has made tax 
filing significantly easier. More importantly, for our purposes, it has 
meant that the vast majority of taxpayers who potentially could have 
benefited from a SALT deduction are already benefiting from the 
increased standard deduction.
  In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the drafters of the bill made sure that 
the benefits were spread across all taxpayers. Between doubling the 
standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit and making it 
partially refundable, and simplifying the tax code, there is hardly a 
taxpayer in America who did not see some benefit from the bill.
  Here, unlike the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the benefits of H.R. 5377 
will go only to a select group of people in a few key States, and it 
will overwhelmingly go to people who are already wealthy--already 
wealthy. Though the majority likes to claim that Republicans only want 
to cut taxes for the rich, it is ironic that the majority is now 
pushing a special tax break that literally benefits only the rich.
  But the bill is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. To pay for this short-
term tax break for a few, the bill also increases the top marginal tax 
rate for all taxpayers on a permanent basis. That is correct. The bill 
imposes a permanent tax hike on all Americans to give a short-term tax 
break for a wealthy few.
  That type of tax change simply doesn't make any sense, Mr. Speaker. 
The tax code does need further reforms, no doubt about it. But those 
reforms should be those that increase the competitiveness of American 
business, simplify the tax code further to make it more comprehensible 
to taxpayers, and ensure further fairness for everyone. Giving a few 
select people in a few States a short-term and complicated tax break 
simply doesn't meet these goals.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, school districts across America are struggling to 
recruit and hire teachers. In the Fourth District of Oklahoma, for 
example, there are 8,680 teachers who currently receive the education 
expense deduction. This legislation doubles the above-the-line 
deduction for educators' out-of-pocket expenses to $500.
  Mr. Speaker, I can imagine that these teachers would greatly 
appreciate being able to claim up to $500 out-of-pocket for the school 
supplies that they buy for their students.
  I want to tell a story from Debra Deskin. Debra is a teacher in 
Oklahoma, and she has been a faithful public servant for 15 years. She 
teaches gifted students. She says: ``I literally had to choose whether 
to purchase items for my classroom and students or pay bills. Honestly, 
the bills get put on the back burner.''
  These are the type of public servants who this bill is tasked to 
support to ensure that they are not having to choose between paying 
their bills or buying supplies for their students.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
reported by the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
H.R. 5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. I 
was an original cosponsor of this legislation.

  Last Congress, the middle class was targeted by the former House 
majority. The tax scam law of 2017 remains one of the most destructive 
bills we have ever seen here because it specifically went after the 
middle class. The principal way it did this was by capping the State 
and local tax, or SALT, deduction, one of the oldest deductions on the 
books. It existed before the tax code, and there was a reason for it.
  This unfair cap hit New Jersey like an anvil dropped from five 
stories up. The average value of all New Jersey families' deductions 
was $19,162 in 2017, a figure double the $10,000 cap.
  But this is not just about New Jersey. The SALT deduction directly 
benefited more than 46.5 million households, which represents over 100 
million Americans. Almost 40 percent of taxpayers earning between 
$50,000 and $75,000 claimed the SALT deduction, and over 70 percent of 
taxpayers making $100,000 to $200,000 used it. Imagine that, that 
spread over millions of households from coast to coast.
  These are families in New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, 
Kentucky, and Texas. They are not all blue States. That is where you 
made your mistake. You tried to nail us, and you got everybody else 
paying through the nose to fund a tax cut, which you know went to Big 
Business and executives, which didn't invest in the government. It 
didn't invest in this government bill. It didn't invest in industry. It 
invested in the pockets of shareholders. We know. Look at the data.
  When I hold this up at my meetings, your home is worth less than it 
should be. That has happened all over the country. That is what it has 
done.
  Get rid of all the deductions; see what will happen to charity 
donations.
  Nor is this just a blue-State issue, like some bad faith critics 
claim. In 2017, the average SALT deduction exceeded $10,000 in 25 
States and the District of Columbia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. At least 10 are so-called red States where the average 
deduction exceeded $9,000, including South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas, 
and West Virginia.
  SALT benefits flow to all communities, like my hometown of Paterson. 
SALT relief empowers communities to make investments in broadly shared 
services.
  I want to emphasize, this package is fully paid for, so don't give me 
this malarkey that you are concerned about the poor people, all of a 
sudden. It is like the Sun coming out in the morning, all of a sudden, 
and we are concerned about the rich. It doesn't work out that way. It 
doesn't work out that way.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy on this particular bill, noting that the President's advisers 
would advise him to veto this bill, were it to pass.

[[Page H12216]]

  


                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 5377--Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act--Rep. 
                    Suozzi, D-NY, and 52 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities 
     Act. This legislation would unfairly force all Federal 
     taxpayers to subsidize a tax break for the wealthy, as well 
     as excessive government spending by fiscally irresponsible 
     States. H.R. 5377 would likely cause State and local 
     governments to raise taxes, all while hindering the growth of 
     small businesses and opportunities for workers.
       The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), which passed 
     Congress without a single Democrat vote, is a signature 
     achievement of the Trump Administration. This bill, which 
     President Donald J. Trump signed into law on December 22, 
     2017, has spurred economic growth across the Nation by 
     lowering individual tax rates, nearly doubling the standard 
     deduction, simplifying the tax code, and closing special 
     interest loopholes. Workers and middle-class Americans are 
     reaping the benefits of the TCJA in the form of record low 
     unemployment and substantially higher wages. H.R. 5377 would 
     turn back the clock by adding a special interest provision 
     back into the Federal tax code that unfairly requires middle-
     class Americans to subsidize fiscally irresponsible States 
     and wealthy taxpayers. In doing so, H.R. 5377 would violate 
     the principle that States should raise their own revenue 
     rather than rely on tax subsidies from the Federal 
     Government. The bill would also reduce incentives for States 
     to be fiscally responsible.
       Additionally, the provision in H.R. 5377 that would raise 
     the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent would 
     stifle economic growth by placing an undue burden on 
     thousands of small businesses. Because it is unfair to 
     middle-class taxpayers, encourages excessive spending by 
     States, and would stunt economic growth, H.R. 5377 is poor 
     tax policy that should not be enacted into law.
       If H.R. 5377 were resented to the President his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody I like better than my friend 
from New Jersey, quite frankly. We are very good friends. We have 
worked together on a lot of good things. But I have to tell you, on 
this one, we just disagree.
  The middle class is going to benefit from this bill? Let me just go 
through the figures again. The top 1 percent of income earners in 
America get 56 percent of the benefits in this bill. The top 5 percent 
get 80 percent. The bottom 80 percent get 4 percent.
  This is not a middle-class bill. This is not even an upper-middle-
class bill. This is a bill for pretty wealthy people. Ninety-six 
percent of the benefits go to households that make more than $200,000 a 
year.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. No, I won't yield. I want to yield to another speaker in a 
moment. You are the one who raised the issue, so I am just going back 
to the numbers.
  The numbers here are pretty clear. This is a targeted tax cut for 
wealthy people in a very few States. That is just the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Lesko), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, most people would think that the most 
surprising bill to me that we voted on this year was the Articles of 
Impeachment. Really, that wasn't a surprise to me because I serve on 
the Judiciary Committee, and since January, we have been doing 
investigations of President Trump. Many Republicans and I predicted all 
along that the majority, the Democrats in this House, were going to 
vote to impeach the President, so it really wasn't a surprise to me.
  But this bill really surprises me, and let me tell you why. My 
goodness, I have served in the Arizona House of Representatives for 6 
years and another 3 years in the Arizona Senate. For years, every time 
the Republican majority would cut taxes so that it would boom the 
economy and help everyone, my Democratic colleagues then said: ``Oh, my 
gosh, those Republicans, they are just helping the rich. They are just 
helping the rich. They don't care about the little guy. They don't care 
about the middle class.'' The same thing is said for years now, years 
and years, by my Democratic colleagues and others that: ``Oh, those 
Republicans, they just care about the rich.'' Oh, baloney.
  The tax cut Republicans did in 2017, you can see the effect of those 
tax cuts. The economy is booming.

                              {time}  0930

  There are more job openings than there are jobs to fill them.
  This bill is an interesting bill because, in the 2017 tax cut bill 
that the Republicans put through, it said--you know what--States that 
are fiscally responsible, that don't have exorbitant property taxes, 
those constituents in my State of Arizona--
  What did you say, sir?
  Did you say I was wacko?
  Oh, thank you, sir.
  Mr. Speaker, people in Arizona, we are responsible taxpayers. We 
don't have exorbitant property taxes. I know people who live in New 
Jersey, and I know how they complain how their property taxes are so 
incredibly high.
  The people in Arizona are fiscally responsible, and that is why 
people are flocking to our State and other States with low taxes. 
People in Arizona and other States that are fiscally responsible, they 
don't want to subsidize the irresponsible States that have high taxes 
by giving them huge deductions on their Federal taxes.
  So, in the Republican tax bill, we capped the deduction at $10,000. 
It seems reasonable to me. In fact, the gentleman from New Jersey, I 
think, just said, recently, the average deduction is $9,000. Well, that 
is below $10,000. That is below the $10,000 cap, so they can deduct it.
  But here in this bill today, Democrats want to raise the cap to 
$20,000 and then totally eliminate it in the next 2 years.
  When the Republicans put forward amendments, one of the amendments 
said let's not give this tax break to the top 10 percent of income 
earners. Democrats rejected it.
  Then Republicans had another amendment that said, well, let's not 
give this big tax break to the top 1 percent income earners. The 
Democrats rejected it.
  So, please, the next time my Democratic colleagues, and Democrats 
throughout the Nation, when they say it is the Republicans who are 
always for the rich people, let's look at this bill, because the proof 
is here. No, it is the Democrats.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Republicans are funding their tax scam 
bill on the backs of hardworking Americans. The fact is that there is a 
race to the bottom under their cheating, gerrymandering ways.
  So, now, the Democrats are in charge in the House. We will continue 
to work to uphold and bring up our hardworking families.
  In Arizona's Eighth Congressional District, there are 9,330 teachers 
claiming this tax expense deduction. They should know the Democrats 
stand with them to ensure that they are able to pay their bills, 
because no one should have to live in poverty because they are standing 
up for a future generation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative 
Torres for yielding me the time and also my good friend from New York, 
Congressman Suozzi, for his work on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill fixes several alarming defects in President 
Trump's tax giveaway to the wealthy. It also takes steps to make our 
tax code fairer for working people.
  In 2017, my Republican colleagues tried and failed to eliminate a 
$250 tax deduction for teachers buying school supplies for their 
children in their classrooms.
  Smaller education budgets have forced too many teachers to buy 
supplies to fill the gap. More than 90 percent of public schoolteachers 
are not reimbursed for these expenses. Nearly 80,000 educators in 
Maryland claim this deduction on their taxes.
  The average teacher spends $479 of their own money buying supplies 
for our kids, so I am pleased that this legislation incorporates 
language from my standalone bill that I filed in the 115th Congress and 
again in this Congress, the Educators Expense Deduction Modernization 
Act, which increases the deduction from $250 to $500. It is a small 
benefit for educators who make a financial sacrifice.
  It is critical for local school districts and States to better fund 
education and pay educators. In Congress, we can

[[Page H12217]]

do more to ensure classrooms are stocked with the supplies that our 
students, our children need.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into my prepared remarks, I want to advise 
my friend that I certainly have no objection to raising the tax credit 
for teachers or first responders. Those things are, I think, perfectly 
laudable parts of the bill.
  Our main objection is simply that the main benefits of this are going 
to the top 1 percent and 5 percent of incomes, and that is just 
indisputable.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 750, a resolution 
that expresses the sense of the House that it is the duty of the 
Federal Government to protect and promote individual choice in health 
insurance for all American people and prevent any Medicare for All 
proposal that would outlaw private health plans such as the job-based 
coverage in Medicare Advantage plans.
  Earlier this Congress, the House Rules Committee held the first-ever 
legislative hearing on the Democratic Medicare for All proposal. During 
that hearing, we heard promises about the Democrat-proposed, one-size-
fits-all, government-run healthcare system. But we also heard about the 
realities of that plan: how it would require doubling income and 
corporate tax rates to implement, how it would lead to long waits for 
care, and how it would lead to 158 million Americans losing their 
current coverage.
  That is all because Medicare for All, if implemented, would outlaw 
private healthcare coverage. This includes coverage offered through the 
popular Medicare Advantage program, which gives 22 million Americans 
healthcare.
  Given that reality, it is wholly appropriate for the House to take 
this stand now. Protecting individual choice and protecting the private 
healthcare plans should be a priority for this House.

  If we defeat the previous question, we will give every Member of the 
House an opportunity to say so together, with one voice.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with the 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
bipartisan Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act, which 
I was proud to cosponsor.
  Since 2017, many families in the north county of San Diego and south 
Orange County communities I represent have taken an unexpected, unfair 
tax hit. The financial plans they had made, like whether to buy a new 
home, were upturned when Washington Republicans passed a tax bill that 
capped the State and local tax deduction.
  In my district, more than 58,000 people who make less than $100,000 
per year claimed SALT deductions in 2017, saving $6,328, on average.
  Many of the families in California's 49th District have made serious, 
long-term financial decisions in recent years based on the expectation 
that they could take advantage of this significant deduction. Now, 
because of the Republican tax bill and the SALT cap that placed new 
limits on those deductions, their financial plans are being turned 
upside down. That is why I am glad that we are voting on legislation to 
restore the SALT deduction.
  The House is doing its part. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell needs to do what is right and bring this bipartisan bill up 
for hearings and a vote.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to quickly respond to my friend, I would remind the 
gentleman that Republicans offered, in committee, an amendment which 
would have, frankly, given the SALT deduction to the bottom 90 percent 
of all Americans in exchange for continuing to charge it on the top 10 
percent. I suspect that would cover the vast majority of the 
gentleman's constituents who might benefit.
  I also remind everybody that the standard deduction was double, so, 
for most people, the average person actually came out ahead. It is only 
the very wealthy people who lost ground under this particular measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Green), a distinguished former general.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say today that I 
live in the State of Tennessee, and in Tennessee, we are a fiscally 
responsible State. We have the lowest per capita debt in the Nation. We 
have no income tax at all. We have no investment income tax.
  When a State has superhigh taxes and you allow individuals to write 
that tax off, it is unfair to those well-managed States like Tennessee 
that don't tax our people as much.
  So, when you raise caps or you raise deductions, those States that 
are poorly managed, those States that are high-tax States to their 
individuals are subsidized by the people in Tennessee. We wind up 
paying more tax so that those States that are poorly managed can pay 
less.
  To say, oh, we have got to do this for the low-income individuals out 
there, well, how about those States just manage themselves better, tax 
their people less, and then there wouldn't be an issue? Why should the 
people of Tennessee have to subsidize States that can't manage 
themselves?
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to correct, for the record, about the 2017 
Republican tax scam.
  We have heard today, during this debate, that these tax cuts boosted 
our economy, and that simply isn't the case.
  I include in the Record an article from Forbes titled: ``The 2017 Tax 
Cuts Didn't Work, the Data Prove It.''

                      [From Forbes, May 30, 2019]

            The 2017 Tax Cuts Didn't Work, The Data Prove It

                         (By Christian Weller)

       The independent, non-partisan Congressional Research 
     Service just released a report showing that the 2017 tax cuts 
     for the richest Americans and corporations did not work. This 
     confirms what anybody who has been looking at the data 
     already knew. Investment did not boom and workers will not 
     see the promised bump in pay. Instead, the federal government 
     incurred massive deficits while wealth inequality increased 
     to its highest level in three decades.
       Republicans in Congress and President Trump touted the 
     benefits of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as game changing. 
     Showering the richest Americans and corporations even more 
     money was supposed to lead to more business investments. 
     These investments, the argument went, would translate into 
     more productivity growth. Workers would then supposedly see 
     an additional $4,000 per year in wages. And faster economic 
     growth and higher wages would result in more tax revenue, 
     thus paying mainly for itself.
       These were empty promises. Businesses did not use the 
     windfall of new cash to invest in new machines, technology, 
     office parks and manufacturing plants. Without an 
     acceleration in business investment, though, American workers 
     will not see the bumps in pay promised over the longer term. 
     The richest Americans instead got even richer while 
     corporations used a lot of the new money to keep shareholders 
     happy. Federal budget deficits quickly ballooned because 
     there was no faster growth and more revenue to offset the 
     hundreds of billions lost each year to the predictably 
     wasteful tax cuts.
       The core of the argument in favor of the tax cuts was that 
     they would result in more investment. The main measure is 
     business investment that goes beyond replacing obsolete 
     equipment and buildings--so-called net non-residential fixed 
     investment. As share of gross domestic product (GDP), net 
     investment reached a low of 2.8% in the first quarter of 2016 
     (see figure below). It grew afterwards until the tax cuts 
     were passed in late 2017 and eventually levelled off rather 
     than accelerating in mid-2018. Consequently, net investment 
     as share of GDP stayed below its levels in 2014. The tax cuts 
     did not accelerate investment as promised by supply-side 
     advocates.
       But maybe the tax cuts boosted growth in other ways? In 
     theory, the tax cuts could have created some additional 
     demand that resulted in people spending more money, which 
     would then have led businesses to also increase its spending. 
     To capture this, an economic measure needs to strip out parts 
     of the economy from GDP that are not affected

[[Page H12218]]

     by tax cuts. These parts include inventory investment--
     material that is produced but sits on shelves--government 
     consumption on salaries and supplies, and net exports--the 
     difference between exports and imports. The resulting key 
     measure are so-called private domestic final purchases 
     (PDFP).
       The tax cuts did not lead to faster private activity. PDFP 
     increased by 3.3% from December 2016 to December 2017, before 
     Congress passed the tax cuts. Afterwards, year-over-year 
     growth remained at or below that level, actually declining 
     since September 2018. This deceleration is yet another clear 
     indictment of the tax cuts' ineffectiveness.
       But didn't GDP growth accelerate? Not only does GDP growth 
     capture parts of the economy that clearly were not affected 
     by the tax cuts, the data also show no acceleration there, 
     either. GDP growth started to get faster from low of 1.3% in 
     June 2016 and continued to gain strength through 2018 (see 
     Figure above). But year-over-year growth in 2018 stayed below 
     the levels shown in early 2015.
       The money from the tax cuts obviously went somewhere, just 
     not to investments or workers' wages. Corporations just 
     decided to use their additional cash to keep their 
     shareholders happy. Non-financial corporations used most of 
     their after-tax profits since the tax cuts went into effect 
     to buy back their own shares and pay out dividends. When a 
     firm buys back its own shares, the remaining shares become 
     more valuable and the company's stock price goes up, 
     increasing the wealth of shareholders, mainly people who are 
     already very wealthy. CEOs in particular gained from buybacks 
     since their compensation typically depends on the price of a 
     company's stock. In 2018, corporations spent about two-thirds 
     of their after-tax profits on buying back their own shares 
     and paying out dividends, according to Fed data. By the 
     fourth quarter of 2018, corporations spent 107. 7% of after-
     tax profits on dividends and share repurchases.
       This was good news for the wealthiest few. The top one 
     percent of wealthiest households owned a record high share of 
     all wealth by the middle of 2018 (see figure below).
       At the same time, federal budget deficits rapidly jumped. 
     After falling precipitously in the immediate aftermath of the 
     Great Recession, the deficits quickly grew again in 2018 (see 
     figure below). The increase in deficits was driven heavily by 
     a sharp drop in corporate tax revenue--not surprisingly, 
     given the massive corporate tax cuts in the legislation.
       did not accelerate, but wealth inequality grew. The 
     American tax payers are now getting stuck with the bill, 
     while they did not see many benefits from this trillion 
     dollar boondoggle.

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record 
another article, and this one is from CNBC, titled: ``Trump Tax Cuts 
Did Little to Boost Economic Growth in 2018, Study Says.''

                       [From CNBC, May 29, 2019]

 Trump Tax Cuts Did Little To Boost Economic Growth In 2018, Study Says

                             (By Jeff Cox)

       An in-depth look by the nonpartisan Congressional Research 
     Service indicated that not only did the rollbacks in business 
     and personal rates have little macro impact, but they also 
     delivered the most benefits to corporations and the rich, 
     with little boost to wages.
       In all, GDP rose 2.9% for the full calendar year, the best 
     performance since the financial crisis. But that came in an 
     economy already poised to move higher, economists Jane 
     Gravelle and Donald Marples wrote.
       ``On the whole, the growth effects [from the cuts] tend to 
     show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the 
     economy,'' the report said. ``Although examining the growth 
     rates cannot indicate the effects of the tax cut on GDP, it 
     does tend to rule out very large effects in the near term.''
       Trump had touted the cuts as a key step toward generating 
     GDP growth of at least 3%. The legislation, passed in late 
     2017, slashed corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, reduced 
     the number of brackets, lowered rates for many individual 
     payers, and doubled the standard deduction in an effort to 
     make most income tax-exempt for the lowest earners.
       Employment continued to boom in 2018 and average hourly 
     earnings have in recent months passed 3% on a year-over-year 
     basis for the first time since the recovery began in 2009. 
     However, the economists said wage gains could not be tracked 
     to the tax cuts.
       ``This growth is smaller than overall growth in labor 
     compensation and indicates that ordinary workers had very 
     little growth in wage rates,'' the economists wrote.
       The study indicated that the tax changes contributed only 
     marginally to the overall economic economic gains--maybe 0.3% 
     of a ``feedback effect.'' The economists say that for the tax 
     cuts to pay for themselves, as Trump has promised, GDP would 
     have to rise by 6.7%.
       ``The initial effect of a demand side is likely to be 
     reflected in increased consumption and the data indicate 
     little growth in consumption in 2018,'' the report said. 
     ``Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-
     income individuals who are less likely to spend. Fiscal 
     stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full 
     employment.''
       At the same time, tax receipts from 2018 indicate that 
     corporations got an even bigger break than expected.
       While the Congressional Budget Office had forecast a $94 
     billion break that still would have generated $243 billion in 
     corporate revenues, the actual total was $205 billion, or 16% 
     lower than projected.
       The effective tax for corporations, or the level they pay 
     after taxes, was 17.2% in the year before the tax breaks took 
     hold and plunged to 8.8% for 2018. Individuals, meanwhile, 
     saw a drop from 9.6% as a percentage of personal income in 
     2017 to 9.2% last year.
       Bonuses from those companies also didn't amount to much 
     when averaged across all workers, with the $4.4 billion paid 
     coming to just $28 per employee in the U.S.
       Companies also received incentives to repatriate profits 
     held overseas, and they did so to the tune of $664 billion. 
     While companies bought back about $1 trillion of their own 
     shares, ``the evidence does not suggest a surge in investment 
     from abroad in 2018,'' the report said.
       The White House did not immediately respond to a request 
     for comment.

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to speak today on the rule, 
but I am just so outraged when I hear people attacking States like mine 
and other States.
  My State, the State of New York, is the largest single net donor to 
the Federal Government of any State in the United States of America. We 
send $48 billion a year more to the Federal Government than we get 
back. And to hear this talk about irresponsible States that are really 
subsidizing these other States of the speakers who have spoken from the 
other side today is just so irresponsible and so divisive in our 
Nation.
  We talk about this bill, about restoring tax fairness, that is 
exactly what it is: tax fairness.
  It is not fair that people are taxed on the taxes they have already 
paid.
  It is not fair that State and local governments who pick up the 
garbage and plow the roads and protect our people and educate our 
children are being forced to have to worry about more money being used 
to subsidize the rest of the country.
  It is not fair that this has been in place since 1913, and they want 
to try and change this covenant that has existed since the beginning of 
the Federal tax code. They want to change it at this time, and it is 
completely unfair.
  Let me point out, with one last point, that 100 percent of this bill 
is paid for by the highest earners in the United States of America. One 
hundred percent is paid for by the highest earners.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from 
New York an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SUOZZI. If my colleagues are concerned about the wealthy getting 
too much, then have them increase the progressive tax even higher if 
that is what they really mean.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody admires my friend from New York more than I do. 
We worked on a number of issues. But let's be real. Democrats are going 
to make the rich, I guess, in every State pay for the rich in your own 
State. That is just the fact.

                              {time}  0945

  Most of the benefit of this thing--56 percent of the benefits--goes 
to the top 1 percent of income earners. That is the fact. Eighty 
percent of it goes to the top 5 percent, and 94 percent goes to 
households that make over $200,000 a year. Those are just the numbers.
  Now, some of this is used for worthy causes. I would agree with that. 
But a permanent tax increase for a temporary tax cut, frankly, just 
doesn't make a lot of sense, and that is what we are dealing with here.
  So I would also suggest that my friends remember that the tax cut 
that they revile so much doubles the personal exemption for most people 
so that more than offsets for most people the SALT tax reduction that 
was reduced. It is not eliminated; it is still there.
  Mr. Speaker, $10,000 a year is still a pretty good deduction to be 
able to take. If you make that much income that you can take a 
deduction that large, then you are probably doing pretty well.
  So, again, I don't have any problem with people defending the 
interest of

[[Page H12219]]

their States, that is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. I don't have 
any problem with people wanting to use money for good purposes. That is 
a perfectly appropriate thing to do. But let's be real about who is 
getting the benefit of this tax package, and it is very-high-income 
people.
  In fact, I am going to oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I won't take a full minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by saying how much I respect and 
admire Mr. Cole, and I have worked closely with him on many issues.
  I just want to make one point, though. So many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have been boasting about the fact that 
people are leaving States like mine to move to their States. That has 
been one of the effects of this tax bill by eliminating the State and 
local tax cap.
  What happens when people leave my State and move to the Southwest or 
the Southeast?
  They leave behind lower- and middle-income-tax people to pick up the 
bill.
  They are trying to boast about the fact that our States, which are 
mature, industrial States that have old roads, old bridges, old sewers, 
old schools, and old hospitals, when we get money from the Federal 
Government, we have got to fix up those legacy issues. We have got to 
deal with pockets of poverty because we have been around for a longer 
time.
  Their States are growing when they get money from us. We are 
subsidizing the rest of the country.
  When they get money from the Federal Government, what are they using 
it for?
  New sewers, new roads, new bridges, new hospitals, and new schools. 
They are growing, and they are bringing in new sales and new property 
taxes. They are trying to take credit for it when really it is because 
of the progressive income tax and the money that has come from our 
States that has helped their States to succeed. It is hypocrisy to 
suggest that our States are somehow irresponsible. It is hypocrisy to 
suggest that they are concerned about the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend I am prepared to close 
whenever she is. In the interim, I will reserve if she has more 
speakers.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close also.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose both the rule and the underlying 
measure. H.R. 5377 is a deeply misguided and partisan tax bill that 
sets up a temporary tax break for a privileged few and seeks to trade 
it for a permanent tax hike for the entire country.
  The bill temporarily removes the cap on the State and local tax 
deduction, a benefit that will primarily go to wealthy taxpayers living 
in expensive homes in a few key States and localities. But to pay for 
this temporary boondoggle, the majority is adding a permanent hike at 
the top marginal tax rate. The benefits will go only to a few key 
privileged areas, but the costs are spread across the entire country.
  It makes very little sense to me to trade a temporary tax break for a 
permanent tax increase, and it makes even less sense to me to ask the 
entire country to pay for it in perpetuity for a short-term tax break 
for a few areas with high State and local taxes.
  Now, my friends have talked about the relative tax burden and who 
gives what and what States give what. As a former member of the Budget 
Committee, those numbers are, by the way, usually based on the 
discretionary portion of the budget. The reality is--I hate to say 
this, because we have a big problem in front of us that I don't think 
either party has confronted very well, certainly not mine, but I don't 
think my friends have either, and I don't think this administration 
has, and I don't think the last one did--every State in America is a 
debtor State if you start adding in Medicare, Medicaid, and those type 
of nondiscretionary expenditures.
  So we have a big problem. It is really related to an aging population 
more than it is anything else, but the idea that some States are so-
called donor States, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, nobody is a donor 
State in America. We are running nearly a $1 trillion deficit. That 
deficit comes almost primarily because we have simply not readjusted 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to pay for the benefits that 
are drawn out. I hope someday we will work on that.
  I actually have a bipartisan bill, I used to carry it with Mr. 
Delaney--a very good friend and Presidential candidate from my good 
friends on the other side--that would go back and set up what we did in 
1983. When Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill worked together, we had a 
Social Security Commission. We actually increased the revenue going 
into Social Security. I think that would have to be one of the long-
term fixes, not simply cuts, reductions, and reforms. That is a debate 
for another day.

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers, in my view, deserve 
better than what is in front of us here today. Rather than making the 
tax code more regressive and complicated, which this bill would do, we 
should further reform and simplify the tax code to make it easier for 
all taxpayers to understand. We should be making American businesses 
more competitive, and we should be taking steps so that American 
workers can keep more of their hard-earned earned income, something I 
know we all want to do.
  In closing, again, just remember this: 56 percent of the benefits of 
this bill go to the top 1 percent of income earners. The top 5 percent 
get 80 percent, and the bottom 80 percent in terms of income get 4 
percent. That should explain it all and why we should reject this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by clarifying a misconception that all 
of these taxes are forced upon taxpayers. This last election cycle 
local voters voted to tax themselves to pay for affordable housing for 
our growing homeless population, to pay for improved roads, and to pay 
for better water quality. So they should not be punished for filling 
the gap where the Federal Government has failed to do so. This bill is 
paid for by raising taxes for households making over $400,000, back to 
the levels before Republicans passed their tax scam bill.
  California pays $13 billion more in Federal taxes than it received 
from the Federal Government according to a 2016 IRS report. Tennessee 
is the third most dependent State on Federal resources. So to argue 
here that we should punish the people for wanting to help provide for 
your constituents because you failed to do that is outrageous. Oklahoma 
received $7.5 billion in Federal funding in 2016. This bill is not 
about subsidizing those who already have too much. This bill is about 
stopping the double taxation on the same dollar.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to try to give the middle-class families a 
break and undo the damage caused by the Republican tax scam. As we look 
forward to the new year, I want to take a minute to reflect on the work 
Democrats in Congress have done during this 116th Congress.
  Whereas, the Republican tax law provided seven drug companies $34 
billion in tax cuts in 1 year alone, last week, Democrats passed H.R. 3 
to help seniors and American families afford their prescription drugs.
  Whereas, last January the President caused the longest government 
shutdown in history by pushing to irresponsibly use taxpayer dollars 
for an unnecessary border wall, Democrats have fought for comprehensive 
funding bills that invest in our infrastructure, healthcare, national 
security, and to increase the Federal minimum wage.
  Whereas, the Republican tax scam led to America's 400 wealthiest 
people paying a much lower tax rate than the working class, Democrats 
are here today because we believe in the middle class.
  Repealing the cap on the State and local tax deductions will benefit 
taxpayers across our Nation. I have heard my colleagues claim that this 
bill is for the wealthy.

[[Page H12220]]

  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues remember voting on the largest tax 
giveaway to the rich and corporations in American history?
  Obviously, they don't. But I am here to remind them that the biggest 
beneficiaries of the tax law that they passed were billionaires. The 
Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that wealthy taxpayers making $1 
million or higher received a tax cut of $37 billion in 2019.
  Mr. Speaker, while the Republican tax scam was a bill for the 
megarich, H.R. 5377 is legislation for constituents like mine, working-
class Americans. The cap on SALT deductions is bad for my constituents.
  The average Californian pays over $18,000 in State and local taxes, 
which is almost double over the SALT cap, again, to help improve the 
quality of life of the fifth largest economy in the world, which no 
other State can claim. As a result, 1 million Californians will pay $12 
billion more in taxes into the SALT cap.
  In 2016 my constituents deducted almost $700 million in State and 
local taxes from their Federal taxes.
  It is time to give them a break and give them back the deductions 
that they once had. No one should have to pay taxes twice on the same 
dollar.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for the rule and 
passage of H.R. 5377, Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on 
the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 772

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 750) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that individual choice in health insurance 
     should be protected. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 750.

  Mrs. TORRES of California. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 195, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 697]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Beatty
     Hunter
     Kaptur
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Pressley
     Serrano
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1024

  Mr. McCARTHY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi and CARSON of Indiana changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 697.


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

  
  December 19, 2019, on page H12220, ``*ERR08*'' inadvertently 
appeared at two places.
  
  The online version has been corrected to delete the inadvertent 
text.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 196, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 698]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer

[[Page H12221]]


     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hudson
     Hunter
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Stanton

                              {time}  1035

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 698.


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

  
  December 19, 2019, on page H12221, ``*ERR08*'' inadvertently 
appeared at two places.
  
  The online version has been corrected to delete the inadvertent 
text.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 




                          ____________________