[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19802-19809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader of the schedule for the week to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour 
and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 
p.m.
  On Tuesday and the balance of the week, the House will meet as early 
as 10 a.m. for legislative business.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  This list will include several bills from the Science Committee that 
are part of the House Innovation Initiative. These bills support 
Americans pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and 
math, with a focus on veterans and individuals historically 
underrepresented in those fields.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend and I recently cohosted the third 
Congressional Hackathon, and I think he and I would agree that STEM 
education is an issue of national competitiveness, and I look forward 
to the House passing these bills next week.
  In addition, the House will consider two measures from the Financial 
Services Committee. First, H.R. 4015, the Corporate Governance Reform 
and Transparency Act sponsored by Representative Sean Duffy. This bill 
will improve the quality of the proxy research while increasing 
transparency for public companies and their investors.
  Second, H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act 
sponsored by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer. This bill replaces 
Dodd-Frank's arbitrary thresholds with a process that analyzes each 
institution of its individual risk factors.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sponsored by Representative 
Kevin Brady. This historic legislation will cap off a 31-year journey 
to reform America's broken Tax Code. We will double the standard 
deduction, making the first $12,000 of income for an individual and 
$24,000 for a family tax free.
  We will increase the child tax credit because investing in families 
is among the most important investments we make. We will reduce the tax 
rate on small businesses to the lowest rates that have been seen in 40 
years. And we do all this while simplifying the Tax Code so Americans 
can file in minutes on a form the size of a postcard.
  Republicans have championed cutting taxes and growing our economy for 
years, and I am excited to deliver this important promise.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are expected, 
including legislation related to government funding and a number of 
other end-of-the-year priorities. I will be sure to inform all Members 
if additional items are added to our schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the majority leader and 
I, as well as his predecessor, Mr. Cantor, have worked together on what 
we call a Hackathon, which is a meeting annually of individuals 
involved in the high-tech community in how better to communicate, how 
better to process information, how better to make transparent the work 
of this body and make the actions of this body accessible to the 
general public as they happen.
  I want to thank the majority leader for continuing to cosponsor this 
effort with me and to be a leader on this effort. We just had the 
President sign--I think yesterday, maybe the day before--a piece of 
legislation, which will try to make the government more facile in 
bringing its technology up to date so that it can operate more 
efficiently and more effectively.
  So I thank the majority leader for working together in a positive way 
to make this institution work better and to make it more accessible and 
better known to the American people. I thank him also for the schedule 
that he has put forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned a number of things that 
the tax bill that is going to be coming before us will do. I don't 
believe that the conference report is available for review at this 
point in time.
  Can the majority leader perhaps enlighten me as to whether or not the 
conference report is available now to be reviewed? Or, if not, when it 
will be available?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I expect the report to be filed online tomorrow. As you know, you 
have got to go through and make sure, from joint tax, filling in the 
dollar figures, and all anticipation is it will be online tomorrow for 
all of America to read.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is my understanding 
that that will be on the floor as early as Tuesday of next week. Is 
that accurate?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, that is accurate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe that what the majority 
leader did not mention--again, I have not seen the conference report, 
so this is not based upon a review of the conference report, but this 
is based upon the Senate bill and the House bills that were passed by 
both bodies--was that it will increase the debt of our country by some 
$1.5 trillion and a minimum of $1 trillion. It will raise taxes on some 
78 million Americans between $50,000 of income and $150,000 of income.
  I am assuming that the elimination of the mandate is still in the 
conference report. I am not sure, but the information I have is that it 
is still in the report. Mr. Speaker, that will cost 13 million people 
to be uninsured as a result.
  I have information, Mr. Speaker, that what the conference report does 
is reduce taxes on some of the wealthiest people in America. I am not 
sure how they offset that--maybe with a mandate, maybe with something 
else--but 62 percent of the bill's resources go to the top 1 percent in 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, Speaker Ryan spoke on this floor about the average 
family making $59,000 a year. He mentioned that that family will get, 
under the House bill--again, I haven't seen the conference report--
$1,182 per year in a tax cut.
  What the Speaker did not mention is that the family in the top 1 
percent will get a tax cut of $1,198 per week. Per week, Mr. Speaker. 
In other words, 52 times what the struggling American will get, what 
the American who Speaker Ryan said may not be able to come up with $500 
if they have a crisis with a refrigerator or their heating unit, 
something of that nature, or their car breaks down will get.
  Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the aisle do not believe that this 
bill addresses relief for the struggling working men and women of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear, in all of the polling, that the average 
working American shares that view. They believe correctly that this is 
a tax cut for the rich and a few sprinkles to the middle class. I am 
sure the leader will have something to say on that.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that what will happen in this 
tax bill is we will phase out. We will--again, I

[[Page 19803]]

have not seen the conference report, so I don't know exactly whether 
that is true or not, but in both the House and Senate bills, we phased 
out--we didn't phase out, we proposed to be phased out. The benefits to 
those middle-income, hardworking Americans will see their benefits 
phased out. That will not be true of corporations. It will not be true 
of the wealthiest in our country.
  So it is troubling, Mr. Speaker, that a bill of this magnitude is 
being rushed to judgment. In 1986, the gentleman, in making his 
announcement, said we have been working on this for 31 years. Now, I 
presume he was talking about from 1986 to 2017.
  What he did not say, Mr. Speaker, is, in 1986, we had 30 days of 
public hearings on a bill. Thirty days of public hearings. What he did 
not say is that we had 450 witnesses during those public hearings 
testifying about the taxes. What he did not say is that there were 
nearly 4 months of hearings on the 1986 reform bill. And what he did 
not say is that the Ways and Means Committee conducted 26 days of 
markup.
  This bill has received less than 7 days of markup in both bodies and 
in the conference. This is being rushed to judgment. The American 
people, by substantial numbers, believe this bill is not good for them.
  Now, Mr. Collins said that he talked to a donor and the donor said: 
Don't call me again if you don't pass this tax bill.
  I get that. I don't know who the donor was and I don't know how rich 
the donor was, but obviously the donor thought that he had a real stake 
or she had a real stake in this tax bill.
  We regret that we are not doing as we did in 1986, because what the 
majority leader did not mention either was that the 1986 bill was a 
bipartisan bill with President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill supporting 
it, and with Chairman Rostenkowski, a Democratic chair of the House 
Ways and Means Committee; and a Republican chair of the Senate Finance 
Committee, Bob Packwood from Oregon, supporting the bill. It was a 
bipartisan bill. And what the majority leader did not mention is the 
1986 bill did not add a single cent to the deficit. It was paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a much lesser product than it could have 
been. We on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, think we need tax 
reform. We are prepared to support tax reform. We believe we need to 
bring down the corporate rate. We believe we need to make sure that 
small businesses can prosper and grow into large businesses.
  What we don't believe in, Mr. Speaker, is simply having a bill that 
advantages the best-off in our country and says that the advantages we 
give to the middle class will be phased out in a little bit, about 5 
years.

                              {time}  1145

  So, Mr. Speaker, we will, according to the majority leader, consider 
this bill next week. It will not be bipartisan, and that is a shame. It 
will not be positive for the country because it will put us even more 
deeply into debt, and the people who pay that bill, ultimately, will be 
our children.
  And on both sides of the aisle--we don't have a lot of Members on the 
floor, but I say to every Member on the floor, every Member on this 
floor, I am sure, at some point in time you have given a speech 
somewhere that said: ``We care about the debt. We are going to bring 
down the debt.'' This bill does not do it. This bill exacerbates the 
debt.
  Anybody who believes that this bill is going to pay for itself 
through dynamic scoring and economic growth is kidding themselves. It 
is a rationalization to vote for a bill for which the main imperative 
is political, not policy, because my Republican colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker, believe that, if they don't pass this bill, they will lose the 
next election.
  I have heard that argument over and over and over again. That is not 
a reason to vote for this bill. It is a reason to say: Let's go back to 
the table. Let's include Mr. Neal in the consideration, the ranking 
member. Let's include Mr. Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate 
Finance Committee. Let's include Mr. McCarthy and me to try to see if 
we can reach a bipartisan, positive, constructive piece of legislation 
which will, like the 1986 legislation, enjoy the support of a wide 
range of the American people and their Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we had an election yesterday in Alabama. Mr. Jones won 
that election. Mr. Strange, the incumbent Republican representing 
Alabama right now, lost the primary. He has no mandate.
  Why rush this bill through? This bill, if it were passed on December 
31 of next year, would affect the 2018 taxes that would be filed in 
April of 2019. The need to rush this bill, Mr. Speaker, seems to be 
that, and the reason for having no hearings, the reason for having no 
witnesses, is because this bill, on its merit, cannot sustain itself.
  Now, let me read you a quote, Mr. Speaker: ``I think the message of 
the moment is that the American people, all across the country, are 
asking us, even in the most liberal State, Massachusetts, to stop this 
healthcare bill. I think that means there will be no more healthcare 
votes in the Senate prior to the swearing in of Scott Brown, whenever 
that may be.''
  That statement was made on January 20, 2010, by the present majority 
leader who was then, of course, the minority leader. And his 
proposition was: You ought to wait until Scott Brown is here so that 
Massachusetts can have its vote counted. But hypocritically, he has 
changed his tune today when Alabama, a very conservative State, the 
opposite of Massachusetts, has voted to elect Doug Jones to the Senate.
  I don't hear Mr. McConnell or anybody else saying: Let's wait for the 
duly elected Member of the United States Senate from Alabama to be 
seated so that he will have an opportunity to vote on this 
extraordinarily consequential vote and, in my opinion, negative 
consequences to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the majority leader might have some comments 
he wants to make in response, and, therefore, I yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There were a lot of questions about the schedule. I took notes 
because there were a lot of things said, but let me first make sure I 
can try to get through all of them.
  You first mentioned many times, what I did not mention. Now, I was 
asked a question, when would we vote on the tax bill, so I want to be 
very clear. I answered the question. I said, yes, we will vote on it 
Tuesday. You said you have heard that it could be Tuesday, so I just 
said yes, and I didn't mention others because I wasn't asked other 
questions. But now that you have, let's walk through this.
  One of your first arguments was debt. Do you realize, in this 
progrowth, tax-cutting, job creation bill, if it just grows four-tenths 
of 1 percent, it pays for all of it?
  But what is interesting here is--don't take my word for it--what 
happens every day to the market when they realize Congress and the 
Senate is 1 day closer to passing the tax bill? Everybody with a 401(k) 
gets a pay raise.
  The market has set more than 59 records since the election and our 
movement to passing a tax bill, and that is for all Americans who 
invested. Everybody's retirement is getting a little better because of 
it.
  Now, what about on the jobs perspective? Well, Broadcom, which was 
created in America but left America based upon the current Tax Code, on 
the day of the announcement of our tax bill, said: We are coming back. 
It is not just that we are bringing so many jobs back. We are going to 
spend $3 billion a year in R&D. We are going to spend $6 billion in 
manufacturing.
  And that is $20 billion a year in revenue for that company that is 
going to pay taxes now in America.
  But I wonder, that is a big company. Do you know what I just read the 
other day? A company announcing they are going to Syracuse, New York, 
based upon our tax bill.
  Yes, things are changing in America. People are excited about it.
  But it is not just those that are going to hire these thousands of 
Americans to work. I want to make sure it happens in Maryland as well, 
so I wanted to look at your district, so here we go.

[[Page 19804]]

My good friend represents Maryland's Fifth. He has done it for quite 
some time. Here are a few facts.
  Currently, you have 47 percent of filers in Maryland Five that take 
the standard deduction, so they will be better off because they will 
get a doubling the day the President signs it.
  Another 11 percent have itemized deductions that are less than our 
new higher standard deduction, so they, too, will save. Not only are 
they going to save money, they are going to save time. Instead of 
spending weeks trying to fill out a tax form, it is going to be done in 
minutes. And you know when they fill out their tax form, they are going 
to get money.
  But they don't have to wait until April 15. Not only in your 
district, but across this country, check your check come February, 
because you know what is going to be in that check? More money because 
the standard deduction goes up.
  So that is 58 percent of my friend's district is better off on day 
one. But from what you tell me, you don't think that is good enough to 
vote for. A majority of your district is better off on day one. That is 
not even talking about the small businesses.
  Do you know, the small businesses in your district, those that are 
earning $400,000, they are going to save $19,000. I know we are dear 
friends, but I am not sure if I have ever known that you have owned a 
business.
  You know my background. When I was 20, I started my first business. 
There were three lessons I learned that have never left me: I was the 
first one to work; I was the last one to leave; and I was the last one 
to be paid.
  This is going to create more entrepreneurship, more opportunity, and 
more people are going to be hired.
  Now, I know you are worried about the debt, but it just strikes me, 
this year, you voted for a budget just a couple of months ago--I am not 
going to go back to another Congress--that increased the deficit by 
$6.8 trillion. So we are only worried about the debt at certain times?
  Well, this bill is actually going to grow the economy, as we have 
watched quarter after quarter after quarter of the administration.
  Now, I have got to make sure I got all of it.
  You talked about hearings. We have had 59 public hearings. We printed 
out, before we even ran to continue the majority, about what we would 
do on tax.
  But let's get to the core. That was your district. Let's say to all 
Americans, it doesn't matter where you live. So anybody, it doesn't 
matter if you sit on that side of the aisle, on this side of the aisle. 
It doesn't matter if you are Democrat, Republican, or you are a 
Socialist. It doesn't matter what you are. You are an American first.
  And you know what your constituents are going to see? Let's take the 
average family, the average family of four, making $55,000. You can 
write this down. You know how much tax they are going to pay? Zero. 
Zero. But that still is not good enough for you.
  It is very interesting, in my social science studies, what the party 
on the other side of the aisle used to say they were for. I believe, 
back in the day, if you would have stood up here and said, ``I have got 
a tax bill that is going to make sure the average family of four, on 
the first $55,000, is going to pay zero,'' they not only would be 
excited, they would vote for it.
  And you talk to me about bipartisanship. I really think that is a 
question for you, bipartisanship.
  Is it bipartisanship when we reach out to you about CHIP, about 
healthcare for children, a place not to play politics?
  We even stopped a hearing and a markup that we had scheduled well in 
the future because you came to us, your side of the aisle, and asked us 
to because you thought you could come to an agreement. Then we were 
told by your leadership, no, nobody could vote for it. We put things in 
the bill that we thought you would even want, but, no, you still voted 
``no.''
  And how many times have you told me on this floor, I think it was 
just a few months ago--and I will quote you, if I may--about government 
funding, because I was concerned because I had read some articles in 
The New York Times that suggested, ``as a minority party struggling to 
show resistance in an era of President Trump, the Democrats are now 
ready to let the lights of government go dark.'' I read that to you 
because I wanted to know was that true or was that false.
  Well, you said to me, when I asked my friend whether that rumor was 
true, he replied: ``. . . nobody on my side is talking about wanting to 
shut down the government. We don't want to shut down the government'' 
was your quote.
  You continued to say: ``I would assure my friend that it is neither 
our intent nor our desire. As a matter of fact, we want to work quickly 
to avoid that happening. That is not good for, obviously, the American 
people; it is not good for managers trying to plan on how to deliver 
services; and it is certainly not good for our Federal employees. So I 
would want to work with you to make sure that doesn't happen.''
  Mr. Speaker, that was in March, just 9 months ago. I wonder what 
changed in those 9 months because just last week--and I tell my friend, 
there was no partisanship in putting a continuing resolution on the 
floor for 2 weeks. There was no poison pill on this side of the aisle. 
It was a clean one. And I watched, sitting at this desk, how the vote 
was going, and I watched the other side, Mr. Speaker. I watched people, 
not that they just voted ``no.'' They were whipped into the position to 
vote ``no.'' I watched the tally. And once that tally got past the 
magic number of 218, I watched my good friend put his thumb up, because 
he gave the okay to those 14 Democrats in his conference that were 
sitting there, that were told not to vote until it passed. I just 
wonder what happened to bipartisanship on something that is so 
bipartisan.
  I know the thousands of Federal employees you have in your district, 
but that is just--I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the 
Democratic Party on the other side who said, just 2 days prior, the 
only person talking about the shutdown is President Trump. Well, the 
only person taking action and whipping to get to a shutdown was on this 
floor.
  We have had open hearings, Republican and Democrats. We have had an 
open, bipartisan, bicameral conference. They have walked through an 
entire bill. We have made sure Americans are going to get a tax cut and 
jobs are going to be created. It is already happening before the bill 
is even signed.
  I am not sure if I didn't mention something else, because you try to 
correct if something was not mentioned. But I want to make sure I 
answered all those questions for you because I know, not just in your 
district, that every family of four making $55,000 will pay nothing, 
that all the small businesses that are going to hire new people--and I 
differ from you.
  Maybe you will whip strongly against it like you whipped strongly 
against the CR and keeping government open, But I still think, when I 
look upon that tally on the tax bill, I think there will be some on 
your side. And why do I think that? Because they told me so.

                              {time}  1200

  But I still think, when I look upon that tally on the tax bill, I 
think there will be some on your side. And why do I think that? Because 
they told me so.
  The only difference will be, at the end of the day, if they don't, if 
you keep the strong arm, and instead of releasing the thumb up once it 
passes and put it down, that is the only reason we won't have 
bipartisanship on the floor that day.
  But I believe in America. I believe in this floor, and I believe in 
the individuals who fight so strongly to get here to represent their 
constituents; that they know the new jobs in their district, they know 
how much those families will save, and they will not let politics get 
the best of them. They will go against the tide to stop it. They 
believe that it will even be better. I look forward to that day.
  I also look forward to my friend coming back to the quote he told me 
9 months ago, because you know what? It is close to Christmas. We have 
military men and women defending us. The

[[Page 19805]]

gentleman talked about that bill the President recently signed that, 
yes, he worked to strong-arm with me, that is going to make government 
more effective, efficient, and accountable. It also had a pay raise for 
our men and women. And when he voted ``no,'' he told them they weren't 
getting their raise. But worse, he went even further.
  The gentleman questioned whether they could actually have the funds 
to continue the battle where they needed to be. We have been through 
shutdowns. We know nobody wins. I believe what he told me 9 months ago. 
I just want him to come back.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He 
made a number of points.
  First, generally, I have been here long enough to have heard the 
debate for the 1981 bill, the so-called supply side, Jack Kemp. Vice 
President Bush referred to it as ``voodoo economics.'' And point of 
fact, as the gentleman knows, because I am sure he knows the record, we 
increased the debt under Ronald Reagan 189 percent. Larger than any 
other President with whom I have served over the last 37 years; 189 
percent. Stockman said: We knew it wasn't going to balance the budget. 
We just said that for political purposes. Stockman said that. He was 
Director of the OMB under Ronald Reagan.
  Then in 2001 and 2003, we had tax cuts. We heard the same arguments, 
how it was going to grow robustly the economy. It brought in the 
deepest recession anybody in this Chamber, other than perhaps Sam 
Johnson, who I think is probably our oldest Member, because the rest of 
us didn't experience the depression, it ushered in not the biggest 
growth rate in America, but the least job-producing 8 years of any 
American President whom I have served with, and the deepest recession 
that anybody in this body has experienced, and a hemorrhaging of jobs.
  In fact, the stock market, which the gentleman refers to, had a 25 
percent decline in value over the 8 years of the Bush administration, 
with two tax cuts where exactly the same argument for growth was made, 
and it didn't happen.
  On the other hand, I was here in 1993, when we raised taxes, not 
much, but a little bit, particularly for infrastructure, and the 
prediction, Mr. Leader, on your side of the aisle: we would tank as an 
economy; we would have a terrible recession.
  Exactly the opposite happened. You were dead, not you personally, but 
those who made that representation were 180 degrees wrong.
  First of all, we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. Nobody has 
done that other than President Clinton. Now, you can say you were in 
charge of the Congress, you were, and I would respond to you: Why 
couldn't you do it under George Bush when you had everything? There is 
no answer to that.
  In terms of the experience that we have had when we had tax cuts, the 
debt did, in fact, explode; 189 percent increase in the national debt. 
That was approximately 2\1/2\ times the increase under Obama and the 
increase under George Bush. But we continue to argue there is going to 
be great growth. No reputable economist agrees with that proposition. 
Well, you read them out to me. I will be glad to hear them.
  The stock market increase under this President has gone up. It went 
up 300 percent under Barack Obama. Three hundred percent. Three hundred 
percent, from 6,500 to over 18,000.
  He had the largest job production, and I told my friend, in 2016, as 
opposed to 2017, hear, my friends, there were 279,000 more jobs created 
in 2016, under Barack Obama, than have been created under this 
President. Mr. Speaker, 279,000 more. Now, that is not a great deal, 
but in terms of growth, there was more growth of jobs in 2016, when 
Obama was President of the United States, than has occurred under 
Donald Trump. Check the records. I am sure you will review and say: 
Let's see if Hoyer is just giving us some malarkey.
  The gentleman talks about this great tax benefit. What he didn't 
mention, and what I was referring to, by the way, was when you were 
giving the schedule, not in response to the question, but that aside, 
doesn't mention the State and local taxes.
  Now, I am not exactly sure what has happened to State and local 
taxes, but in my State, it will have a very substantial negative 
effect. Why? Because we have a significant income tax. Why? Because it 
is a progressive tax, and it puts the burden on those who have more.
  Now, you may disagree with that. Just have a flat tax no matter what 
you have, and you pay the same thing. I am not sure exactly what you 
have done.
  The shutdown you talk about. You had 90 people vote against a CR that 
you recommended they vote for in September, which was a clean CR. You 
would not have passed that CR. You would have shut down government. You 
are responsible for keeping government open, ``you'' being your party. 
You are in the majority. The only reason that CR passed was because we 
voted for it. You had 90 of your people vote against it; 90, who 
apparently didn't want to pay the military, apparently didn't want to 
protect them overseas. That proposition, like they say, won't hunt, 
because the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voted against that 
CR. Why? Because he thought it was harmful to the national security of 
our country. Secretary Mattis believes the CR is damaging.
  It is inappropriate, in my view, when we do something and say: We 
don't like this bill, and the only party with whom I have served who 
would consciously, purposely shut down the government, I tell my 
friend, Mr. Speaker, is the Republican Party. They did it in 1995, 
under Newt Gingrich, and they did it last year with Mr. Cruz coming 
over here and saying: Shut down the government unless they repeal the 
ACA. Shut it down, consciously.
  We have never done that. Have we had to shut down because we couldn't 
get agreement? We have done that for a few days. But for 16 days you 
shut it down consciously. And guess what? When you voted to open up the 
government, guess who voted against it? Mr. Mulvaney, the Director of 
the OMB. He voted against opening up the government. I guess he was 
against the Armed Forces. I guess he was against defending our country, 
if that's your proposition.
  CHIP. You are right. You waited. We didn't get an agreement. But we 
waited long after September 30, when the gentleman says he is very 
concerned about funding it. The authorization expired. Now, you passed, 
ultimately, a bill that we didn't vote for. You passed it on your own. 
If you really were that concerned, you would have passed it before the 
authorization expired on September 30. We passed it some weeks later, 
and we passed it with a piece of funding in there that is going to 
undermine, for instance, just as one example, vaccinations for 
children, because you funded it, in part, by reducing substantially the 
Prevention Fund, which seeks to prevent illness.
  On bipartisanship, very frankly, we had a 2-week CR, you are right, a 
2-week CR. You got a 2-week CR. The only thing you have worked on, from 
our perspective, is the tax bill, and you did not include us in those 
discussions. You had closed hearings.
  We had a conference hearing yesterday. Mr. Neal tried to move an 
amendment out of order. It wasn't accepted. It was a done deal. Done 
deal in secret.
  I tell my friend, I reread a little bit of ``Young Guns'' last night. 
It talked about transparency. It talked about openness. It talked about 
doing things one at a time, not packaging a lot of bills.
  The reason we all hate CRs is because nobody knows what is in a CR. 
We lard it down, and this CR is larded down with numerous bills. We are 
talking about the tax bill, but the CR that the gentleman talked about 
is five or six major pieces of legislation put in one package. Take it 
or leave it.
  That is not the way to run this organization, and that is what you 
guys said in ``Young Guns.'' And I agree with you, but it is not what 
you have done. It is what you said, but it is not what you have done.
  Let me just close on this. Frankly, I was going to talk about the CR, 
but I am talking about it now.
  We don't have a budget caps deal. Today is the 14th; so we are 
essentially

[[Page 19806]]

17 days from the end of the year. We don't have a caps deal. We don't 
have a disaster supplemental for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands that is proposed to be in this CR, as I understand it, 
and the fires in California. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and 
we are going to support helping the folks of California who have been 
devastated by these fires. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  We don't have anything on DREAMers. We think that is critically 
important. I said to the majority leader 4 months ago that we felt this 
was critically important and we needed to get this done. I think, as I 
have said to the gentleman, we have over 300 votes on this floor for a 
bill to get this done.
  Alexander-Murray. I don't think, I don't know, I haven't seen the 
conference report, but Alexander-Murray, which tries to stabilize the 
availability of healthcare at a reasonable price to the American 
people, I don't think that is in the tax bill, as I understand it.
  VA Choice funding, I think, is in the CR. I haven't seen exactly what 
it says.
  Opioids funding. I have a crisis in my district. In every district in 
America, opioids is a critical issue. There is no funding in the CR, as 
I understand it, for that.
  The fire grants program for our emergency responders, no money for 
that.
  Perkins loans, nothing for that. The debt limit is going to come 
later.
  National Flood Insurance Program, nothing for that, as I understand 
it.
  Medicare and other health extenders, 702 of FISA to keep America 
secure and strong and safe. As I understand it, none of that is being 
dealt with.
  The reason we voted against the last CR is because we are tired of 
kicking things down the road. We are tired of kicking the can down the 
road. We want to get to an agreement on a bipartisan basis to pass 
legislation that is positive for our country, and that is why we may 
vote against this next CR, because we ought to stop just kicking the 
can down the road. And we are going to kick the can, as I understand 
it, down the road to some point in time to January 19, is the 
discussion.
  Mr. Leader, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit down to try to reach 
agreement on these issues that have got to be reached. If we don't 
reach them, America will be less safe, less secure, less healthy as an 
economy and less healthy, literally, in terms of making sure that the 
healthcare available to America is on a stable path.
  Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the majority leader and then make a few 
comments, and then we will close. I yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do look forward to these colloquies, and I first want to make sure 
history has it right. 137 economists sent a letter to Congress 
supporting our tax reform effort and saying it will accelerate growth. 
I don't know if the gentleman dislikes these 137, but these are 
economists. I don't judge the difference.
  History says President Obama added more than $8 trillion to the 
national debt.
  Now, how does that measure against all of the others?
  Well, that is more than 43 prior Presidents combined. That is what 
history shows.
  My friend is correct. He has been here much longer than I have. He 
actually had the majority for 40 years. He didn't balance the budget 
during that time. There was a common denominator that got the budget 
balanced in those 4 years, and that was the Republican majority who had 
to fight for it to get there.
  The gentleman raised some other issues. He brought an issue up with a 
number of days. I don't think we should waste any time. He brought an 
issue up of we don't have a cap agreement to be able to work forward. 
It wasn't the gentleman, but it was his leader on the other side who 
decided not to go to the meeting at the White House.
  The gentleman says that we should not waste our time on the floor. It 
wasn't this side, but we did have to take time up on this floor to make 
a motion to impeach the President. We took that time up on the floor. 
We didn't take the time up for CHIP and for the others.
  I do remember the quote from my friend. We differ, sometimes 
philosophically, but we are friends and we are friends because I admire 
him. I admire principles. There are times when I have watched the 
gentleman stand for what he has said for years, and maybe his party has 
a different position. He doesn't hide from it. It is what he told the 
American public he would do, and he voted that way. And he will stand 
and oppose me because it is what he said in the past and what he said 
he would do.
  But this is not something new. He has always said: ``Funding our 
government is not a game. When one side wins and the other side loses, 
a shutdown is not a political football to be tossed around so 
casually.'' I was personally shocked last week.
  I wondered what would have happened as I watched your operation whip 
people to a ``no;'' as we watched the time click; as you watched, you 
held those who stood by the voting booth who wanted to vote ``yes'' but 
could not.
  Had we not gotten enough votes to keep government open, would your 
side of the aisle have applauded? Would your side of the aisle thought 
they won victory?
  And you do go back and it is correct, there were 90 Members on this 
side of the aisle who didn't vote for a CR, but you, like myself, 
understand a CR is usually a responsibility of both because it is 
bipartisan. No one is getting anything, and no one wants to end in that 
position.
  We don't want to be in a CR and we don't want to vote for a CR. That 
is why we came to you so many times in the past when it came to CHIP. 
But, yes, I understand sometimes people can use it for politics. Let's 
push it all to the end so maybe we get an advantage with something 
else.
  We wanted an agreement. That is why staff of those four leaders have 
been meeting, and actually came to a pretty close agreement.
  So what do they do next?
  Take it to the next level. Let's go to the White House because the 
White House has been in those meetings at the same time because the 
President has to sign the bill, the Senate, the House, and leaders on 
both sides. But when that meeting came just a few short weeks ago, your 
leaders wouldn't show up. And I take you at your word that you are 
willing to sit down. The rest of your leadership has to be willing to 
sit down, too.
  But this idea that we want to hold government hostage, so many times 
I have heard the gentleman in the past say that was wrong. He asked 
about the things that haven't been done.
  The thing I love the most--I believe in metrics. They have to be 
honest metrics. I will share them with you because I share them with 
our side of the aisle because I want us to be judged. I want us to know 
exactly where we are. And if we are not where we said we are going to 
be, we should actually work harder.
  So I took the first Congress of every new President since George H.W. 
Bush. I wanted to see how many bills came through committee. Because 
the gentleman is right. When he read the ``Young Guns'' book--and I am 
not saying to buy it in any shape or form because I don't want to cause 
any ethics issues, but I don't get any money from it anyway. I give it 
to the veterans.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I keep pushing it for you.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I don't even know if it is in print. I want the bills 
to come through committee because that is where the expertise is; that 
is where the open public process is; that is where amendments get to be 
offered, won or lost. More bills in a first Congress since George H.W. 
Bush have gone through committee.
  Now, let's measure how many bills have gotten off this floor.
  Does the gentleman realize that more bills have been passed out of 
this Congress than any Congress in the first term of a President in 
modern history back to George H.W. Bush?

[[Page 19807]]

  And we did it by going through a transparent, open process; exactly 
what we pledged we would do in that book. So, yes, I am glad you read 
it and I am glad you took the words, and I would love to show you the 
graphs.
  But let's walk back to this: government funding is important. Let's 
talk about it. Here are the facts: By mid-July, all 12 appropriations 
bills passed both subcommittee and full committee. That was July. On 
July 27, we passed the four appropriations bills off the House floor, 
which provided for critical national security. Now, my friend and 
nearly all of the Democrats voted ``no.''
  On September 14, we passed the remaining eight appropriations bills 
off this floor. Now, my friend and nearly all of the Democrats voted 
``no.''
  But the most disappointing vote, as I mentioned, was last week on 
December 7 to fund the government. My friend and the Democrats all 
voted ``no.''
  When I was young and I didn't always get my way, I would go to my 
parents and I would complain. But it is really odd that we got to this 
floor in a different nature, that someone would complain about 
something not getting done and never vote for anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I like my friend. I want my friend, who, for decades, 
has talked about not playing games with the funding of government. I 
don't know where you have gone, but I want you to come back. I think 
America needs you back. I think that leadership will be important for 
both sides. And I will tell you, I would have been disappointed in you 
if I watched you applaud if you were successful in shutting down the 
government. Because I know that is not the man you are. I know that is 
not the person and the principles of what you stand for.
  All of those votes that you said this side of the aisle didn't vote 
for, I stood and voted for those because leadership is different. We do 
take votes that are tougher than others. We do have to put politics 
aside, and we do have to look out for the best of this country. It may 
not be the mood of the politics on TV that maybe wants to fight more, 
or throw another motion on the floor to impeach, but there is a time 
that we should rise above.
  I think going into the end of this year, we should think anew and act 
anew. I think America should not see a bad Christmas because one side 
of the aisle wanted to shut it down, and not for any other reason than 
they voted ``no'' on all of the bills that would have kept it open. If 
you had a cause, if you had a desire, and if you had a big desire, you 
would have shown up to the meeting to actually get the answer.
  We could have a cap agreement. We could be done with it. We could 
make sure our men and women get the raises they deserve. We could make 
sure that those in battle theater have every opportunity so they are 
able to carry out their mission that we asked them to do in the safest 
manner possible. That is what I want to see.
  Mr. HOYER. ``Come back, Shane.'' Maybe many of you are not old enough 
to remember that wonderful movie. Shane rode off and the little boy 
intoned, ``Come back, Shane.''
  I haven't gone anywhere. Democrats have no ability to shut down the 
government on the floor of this House. Hear me: We don't have the votes 
to shut down government and we don't want to shut down government.
  Maybe the leader also wants those 90 of his--he is not our leader. He 
is the leader of the majority party, and 90 of his people did not 
follow him. I presume he must be much more concerned about that.
  With all due respect, he is my friend, but not my leader. We voted to 
give 90 days and nothing was accomplished in that 90 days other than 
working on a tax bill that we think is a disaster for this country. 
Nothing.
  The gentleman talks about passing these appropriations bills. We knew 
they wouldn't pass the Senate and we told him so. We said: Let's do it 
on a bipartisan basis.
  But, no. By the way, Mr. Speaker, it was the least regular order 
prior to an omnibus at the end of a year in dealing with appropriations 
bills that I have ever seen. They packaged, I think it was four or five 
the first time--four, I think, and then the balance of eight.
  We didn't consider them individually. We didn't have an opportunity 
to consider them thoughtfully, no. It was one big package, for or 
against. I said I read that book. It was anything but regular order.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, the majority party that passed them is the 
majority in the United States Senate; and not a single one of those 
bills, not a single one, has passed out of the Senate. Not a single one 
has gone to the President of the United States. Not one. The 
Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate. Not a single 
bill has gone to the President of the United States.
  Harry Reid is no longer there just to beat on: Oh, it is Harry Reid.
  Now, what it would have taken to pass some of those appropriations 
bills in the Senate is some compromise, but that didn't happen. So 
don't wring your hands about how bad it is that we haven't had 
bipartisanship on the appropriations bills--we haven't--or 
bipartisanship on the CR when you lose 90 of your people. Ninety 
Republicans voted against a simple CR. You say simple CR, nothing to be 
partisan about, et cetera. Ninety of your people voted ``no.''
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples. That 
had a debt ceiling in it.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me reclaim my time just so the gentleman can further 
explain.
  Does that mean 90 of your people did not want to pay the bills of the 
United States and default on our debt?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  But if you are going to compare a CR that you said was simple, it is 
not simple. We all know that. If you are going to compare it to the CR 
that you voted against last week, that had no debt ceiling on it. You 
explained to me numerous times of how many CRs you voted for in the 
past in this body and how Democrats came over with Republicans. 
Because, you know what, you and I both know that is normally how it 
works.
  A CR is not an advantage for one or the other. And this is what I am 
most upset with. Our Founding Fathers created a body that could have 
compromise. But for some reason, in today's society, it is not just 
that you want one side to win. You want to try to crush the other side. 
That is not crushing one side or the other. That is actually hurting 
the American public.
  So in a situation where we know that a continuing resolution is going 
to be short term, in 2 weeks, yes, I would expect half of the votes to 
come from your side and half of the votes to come from ours. That is 
what has happened in the past. I am just wondering where that went.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman very 
respectfully: Do not expect cooperation from our side if we don't get 
cooperation from your side, if we don't get some inclusion in making 
decisions.

                              {time}  1230

  We are, after all, 194 Members of this body. From time to time, you 
and I do work together. When we work together, we get majorities and we 
pass pieces of legislation.
  You have not passed a single controversial fiscal bill on this floor 
without our substantial help until last week. You got about 230 on that 
last bill. But let me tell you, the reason we voted against it is 
because we knew exactly what was going to happen: nothing. There would 
be no agreement to CHIP; there is no agreement on CHIP. There would be 
no agreement on FISA; there has been no agreement on FISA. There would 
be no agreement on flood control; there has been no agreement on flood 
control. So we knew that we were not going to get any bipartisan buy-
in, so all we were doing is delaying the inevitable.
  Let me tell you, when we did defeat the homeland security bill--you 
remember that, I am sure; we did, and

[[Page 19808]]

you were in the majority--you came back to the floor and said that we 
are going to meet tomorrow. We reached an agreement, and we passed it.
  Very frankly, you have never heard us say that, as a policy, in order 
to get the ACA repealed or Gingrich wanted to get some fiscal thing 
done, that we would shut down the government. Three times you shut it 
down in 1995 and 1996. Three times, intentionally. That was your 
policy.
  Yes, if you are going to take the government hostage and force us to 
do something that we think is inimical to the best interests of this 
country, yes, Mr. Leader, you will leave us with no other option: to 
pretend that we are keeping government moving but not getting any 
agreement.
  I talked to you very sincerely 4 months ago about one of the things 
that we wanted to get done before the end of this year is getting 
DREAMers protected who are now vulnerable and very scared that they are 
going to be sent back to someplace they do not know, have not lived in, 
brought here as children through no fault of their own, gone to 
elementary school, junior high school, high school, college, served in 
the military, working at jobs, and vetted to make sure that they 
haven't done anything wrong. They are afraid of being sent back home--
not back home. Excuse me. I say that. That is not their home. This is 
their home.
  Nothing has been done on that. I know you have a task force and 
talked about it, but we haven't done anything. There is no reason why 
we can't. I think we have 300 votes on this floor to get that done.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. The gentleman is correct. There are many times we have 
worked together, on sanctions, on homeland and others. We work very 
well together.
  The gentleman knows I came to you about CHIP when the committee was 
directed, on your side of the aisle, not to do anything with the 
majority party, so I came to you because of our history.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I don't know who the gentleman is 
relying on for that information, but I will tell you I have talked to 
Mr. Pallone. That is not correct.
  I don't know who you think directed him not to reach an agreement, 
but I will tell you, after you made that assertion, I think last week 
or the week before, I went to Mr. Pallone. I asked him that, and he 
said absolutely not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I came to the gentleman. I was under the impression. A 
Member came to me and said that. Maybe that is not true. Maybe that is 
not what Mr. Pallone wants.
  But I came to you and said: Let's get together and work this out. I 
don't want to make CHIP partisan in any shape or form. We met, and we 
tried to work.
  You came back to me and said: You have to go alone.
  I said: That is not how I want to do it.
  So what we did was we took everything we heard from the hearings. In 
good faith, the chairman of that committee, Greg Walden, stopped a 
markup because you requested--not you, but your ranking member. They 
weren't prepared. They wanted more time.
  So we want to do everything in our power; but, at the end of the day, 
you couldn't be there. Twice, your side of the aisle voted against 
CHIP. You can't argue against it now. You voted against it.
  When you talk about appropriations, I am very proud of what we did on 
appropriations. We haven't been able to do that in quite some time. But 
there were, in those first four bills--every single one of those 12 
bills went through subcommittee and full committee. There were 126 
amendments on the first four and 342 on the second.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time for just a second, and then 
I will yield back to the gentleman.
  Is the gentleman proud that you control the House, you control the 
Senate, and you haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the 
President? Not a single one. Not one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  No. That is why I want you to join with me and get the Senate to 
move, because, as the gentleman knows, you don't control the Senate 
when you have 51 or 52 Members. Do you know what happens? It takes 60.
  Now, I don't firmly believe in that, but that is the way they play it 
over in the Senate. That is why, when you don't have a cap agreement, 
that you need all four leaders to go to the White House. But when the 
two won't show up, the best thing to do is, is you don't show up, then 
don't complain I don't have an agreement.
  The best way to complain is get all 12 bills off this floor with a 
simple majority. If that is good enough for America inside Congress, it 
should be good enough on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, that is 
not the case. So your side is able to hold it up, and I'm ashamed of 
that as well.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what it would have meant, 
you would have had to compromise. That is why the Senate has that 60-
vote rule. I am not crazy about it myself, but that is why they have 
the 60-vote rule. They think it is good because that is why they kept 
it. They think it is good because it requires compromise; it requires 
agreement; It requires moving ahead on a piece of legislation.
  I will tell you, I served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 
years, and we reached agreement between Republicans and Democrats on 
almost every bill. And when we had the bills, they weren't partisan 
bills, and they got a lot of Republican votes, almost always, when we 
were in charge--not all the time, almost always.
  If you are a party of no compromise, then you can't move things in 
the United States Senate. I get that. But that is the reason. That is 
the reason, because you couldn't reach compromise.
  Very frankly, a lot of the bills have come out of the committee. Do 
you know why they came out of committee? Because they were bipartisan. 
But they haven't been brought to the floor by Mr. McConnell, and they 
haven't been sent to the President of the United States, so somewhat 
crocodile tears.
  Yes, you passed those 12 bills just like you can pass the CRs, on 
your own, without any help from us. If the government shuts down, it is 
because you can't get the majority of your party to pass bills.
  Mr. McCARTHY. No. No. No.
  Mr. HOYER. You are in charge. There is no doubt when we were in 
charge and you didn't support us, we passed every piece of legislation 
we wanted to pass on this floor with 218 Democrats. We were united as a 
party. Now, we lost some, but never enough to make it so that we didn't 
get 218. You lost 90. You can say it was on the debt; you can say it 
was on national security; you can say whatever you want on it; but you 
brought a bill to the floor, and 90 of your people voted against it to 
keep government open and to keep government operating.
  Very frankly, we voted with you so that we could get some work done, 
and we haven't gotten work done. That is what frustrates us. That is 
what frustrates the American people.
  I will tell my friend, at the end of the day, after this Congress is 
gone, historians are not going to be kind, notwithstanding the fact you 
say you passed so many bills. You passed so many bills on a partisan 
basis, and you used, essentially, the 51 vote because you didn't want 
to compromise. We get it. You don't want to compromise. You don't want 
to work with us. You didn't have any hearing on this tax bill. We were 
not included in any phase of the marking up and fashioning of this tax 
bill.
  Now, I am about ready to yield back the balance of my time. I am sure 
that everybody who wants to give a 1-minute or a Special Order is very 
happy to hear that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page 19809]]

  The gentleman is correct about compromise, but there is a real big 
difference between compromise and obstruction, to obstruct, when you 
talked about the Senate. It takes 60 votes to even get on to a bill. I 
know as well as my friend that you can utilize the Senate and the 
leadership of the House to stop something if you want to.
  I will tell my friend that I am disappointed. What will you say to 
the 62,000? What will you say to the 62,000 Federal employees who live 
in your district? What will you say to them about every quote you made 
in the past that you should not play games with funding and shutting 
down the government?
  You may think you can make that statement here. Your leader may think 
that she can say that only the President was talking about a shutdown. 
The President never whipped one vote to shut it down. He whipped it to 
stay open. History won't be kind.
  Yes, we will come to a conclusion next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
remember President Trump saying that a good shutdown will be good for 
government? Do you remember him saying that, when you tell me about how 
he has been down here lobbying? He said: A ``good shutdown'' may be 
good for government.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand what his words said. I also watched his 
actions. I also watched what he did last week to get Members to vote to 
keep it open because things did change. There was not compromise even 
though the bill was a compromise because there was no poison pill in 
it.
  If we are going to carry everything ourselves, maybe we should put 
something in it. It was a compromise, but, unfortunately, you changed 
on the other side. You decided now is the time to shut the government 
down, try to blame somebody else.
  The American people will see through that, and I will guarantee you 
that 62,000 people who work for the Federal Government in the Maryland 
Fifth District will not take that as an answer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would, again, reiterate: the majority party can do 
whatever it wants on this floor. It could have kept government open. It 
could have kept policies moving with its votes. Time after time after 
time on critical issues confronting this country, they couldn't come up 
with a majority.
  As a matter of fact, on one occasion, Mr. McCarthy was the whip, Mr. 
Cantor was the majority leader, and Mr. Boehner was the Speaker. They 
offered a bill to keep government moving. They only got 84 of their 
colleagues, approximately one-third of their colleagues on their side 
of the aisle, to vote with them.
  I don't want to hear about us shutting down government. We can't shut 
down government. They are in charge. The majority has the votes. You 
can do whatever you want. We get it. We may not like it any more than 
you liked it, but we get it.
  But we voted on the hope that we would get some work done. We haven't 
moved anyplace except on the tax bill, which we think is bad for this 
country, in the last 90 days since we passed--and we passed. The CR 
would not have passed without us.
  And, yes, we will not be held hostage. Yes, we will oppose what we 
think is a very, very bad tax bill and we think is an effort to avoid 
getting the work of this House done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Budd). The Chair would remind Members to 
direct their remarks to the Chair.

                          ____________________