[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8157-H8167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H. CON. RES. 71,
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2019 through 2027, with the Senate amendment thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on the Budget or her designee that the House concur
in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is budget day. I don't know if you were
as excited about that when you got out of bed this morning as I was,
but, to be fair, I sit on the Budget Committee.
I have the great honor of serving on the Rules Committee, and that is
why I have the great honor of bringing this rule to the floor today.
But I serve on the Rules Committee by night. By day, I serve on the
Budget Committee with my friend Mr. Pascrell and others, and we have
been working since January to produce a budget for the United States of
America.
I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we produced a whale of a budget
coming out of the House Rules Committee. You remember that budget, you
supported that budget. We did a fantastic collaborative job bringing
that budget to the floor, and then it went to the United States Senate.
Now, you know how this happens, Mr. Speaker. We all grew up watching,
``I am just a bill sitting here on Capitol Hill. Well, it is a long,
long journey to the capital city, it is a long, long wait while I am
sitting in committee.'' We all know the song from our childhood.
It is a long process to move a bill through, and nine times out of
ten, it comes back differently from the United States Senate than the
way we sent it over there.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today by concurring with
the Senate amendment, and if we pass this rule, that is what we will
have an opportunity to do. If we pass this rule, we will have an
opportunity to have the debate, concur in the Senate amendment, and
bring a unified budget to the floor.
Now, what does that mean, Mr. Speaker?
We have already been working on appropriations bills this cycle, and
for the uninitiated, that is the bulk of the Federal spending that goes
on. All of the mandatory spending that you and I both know about, Mr.
Speaker, Medicare, Social Security, those important income support
programs on which so many Americans depend, that money is already going
out the door.
So today what we have an opportunity to do in passing this budget is
to create what they call reconciliation instructions, because contained
inside this unified budget of which the House and the Senate agree are
reconciliation instructions that allow us to bring what I believe will
be the most comprehensive, fundamental reform of our Tax Code since Tip
O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did it in 1986.
Since 1986, 4 decades ago, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today
to do something that no other Congress has been able to do since I have
been an adult, and I am excited about that opportunity.
Now, to be fair, we are going to have a lot of disagreement about how
to get that done. That is not the debate we are having today. For any
of my colleagues or anybody back home, Mr. Speaker, who is worried that
right here in this debate on a Wednesday, we are going to sort out our
entire Tax Code, fear not, fear not. That is not the debate we are
having today.
The debate we are having today, Mr. Speaker, is will we or will we
not take on the challenge of reforming our Tax Code. I believe that we
will.
The debate that we are going to have today is will we or will we not
confront the fact that America has one of the least competitive tax
codes in the world, but Americans deserve one of the most competitive
tax codes in the world.
The debate we are going to have today, Mr. Speaker, is not about the
details of tax reform, but about the premise of can we do better for
the American people or can we not.
I have the great benefit, Mr. Speaker, of not having to learn what I
know about this Chamber from watching it on TV or reading it in the
headlines. I consider myself very blessed to have the opportunity to
serve among these men and women. If I just had to read about them in
the headlines, I would have a very low opinion of them. I confess, I
would have a low opinion. But because I get to work with these men and
women, Mr. Speaker, I get to see the real commitment to their
constituencies, the real commitment to their home States, the real
desire to deliver on behalf of their constituencies and on behalf of
the United States of America.
We may have a divisive debate today. We sometimes do. But my
prediction here in hour one, Mr. Speaker, is that by the time we leave
this floor, we are going to have an agreement to take on one of the
challenges that no party has been able to take on since Democrats and
Republicans came together in 1986 to get it done.
It is my great hope that we will use that model, that we will repeat
that model, that we will improve upon that model, and that we will
produce something that all of our constituency can be proud of. I know
that America is hungry for tax reform, and I believe we can deliver it
for them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule,
support the underlying concurrence in the Senate amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, my friend Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. Today,
House Republicans are pushing a job-killing budget so they can use
fast-track reconciliation procedures to steamroll through their
billionaires-first tax plan.
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be the people's House. We ought to
have the people's budget, a budget that helps the millions of Americans
who sent us here to Congress, not a budget that helps only a few, the
well-connected and the well-off.
I disagree with Mr. Woodall. This is not a time to celebrate. This is
a terrible budget. This budget will devastate America's investments in
good
[[Page H8158]]
paying jobs, it threatens growing wages and the bedrock promise of
a secure and healthy retirement. It makes cuts across the board that
would hurt seniors, children, veterans, and the hardworking people
across this country who are already struggling to get by.
Why are Republicans doing this?
Well, it is all in the name of fast-tracking the Ryan-McConnell tax
plan, which explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and then provides
multitrillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. We
Democrats think this is a horrible idea.
What is particularly astonishing is the blatant hypocrisy of
Republican leaders pushing this deficit-busting budget. Republicans are
always telling us how much they care about the deficit, but when it
comes to giving their beloved tax cuts to their billionaire friends,
they suddenly develop a convenient case of amnesia. They say: What
deficit? Don't worry. These tax breaks will pay for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. In this Republican-controlled Congress,
we can now say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer
matter. All of the talk by Republicans, well, they didn't really mean
it.
If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way
imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the
floor. This kind of shows what they truly believe, where their values
are, where their priorities are.
How many times have Republicans talked about the importance of a
balanced budget?
The Speaker called for a deficit-neutral tax plan in his Better Way
agenda. Well, I guess this debt-creating budget is the ``Somewhat Less
Better Way'' plan.
Your budget chair took to Twitter just 2 weeks ago to chastise Senate
Republicans for not pursuing a balanced budget, yet now she is fully in
support of their budget, which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with
no way to pay for it.
Now, let me spell this out for my Republican friends. This is not a
balanced budget. Clearly, Republicans desperately need a refresher on
basic arithmetic.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing balanced about hitting
middle class families and millions of hardworking Americans with cuts
while giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts they simply do not
need. Billionaires aren't knocking down our door asking for more tax
breaks. This is disgusting. This is shameful.
The Republican budget destroys middle class jobs by stealing hundreds
of billions of dollars from investments in infrastructure, job
training, advanced energy, and research and development. It devastates
Medicare and Medicaid. It demands deep cuts to safety net programs like
SNAP. I am talking about food for hungry children and hardworking
families. It goes after college affordability. It makes college more
expensive for working families. It undercuts key supports for veterans
and their families.
What is particularly offensive is that Republicans are using this
terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the wealthy as
quickly as possible regardless of the consequences and without
bipartisan support.
The tax reform framework supported by Republicans in Congress will
raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy. Under
the Republican plan, the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all
tax benefits. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent would receive 80
percent of all tax benefits. Give me a break.
Those making more than $900,000 a year would receive an average tax
cut of more than $200,000. Think about that. A person working full time
in minimum wage makes $290 a week before taxes. And under this plan,
people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year, would get a massive
tax break. Corporations will receive a tax cut totaling $2 trillion.
Who loses in this plan, Mr. Speaker?
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, one in three middle
class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would actually
receive a tax increase, and nearly half of middle class families with
kids will see their taxes go up.
Can you believe that: raising taxes on the middle class to pay for
tax cuts for billionaires and corporations?
This is insane.
To make matters worse, Republicans are planning to steamroll their
tax plan through Congress. We are reading in the press that we might
see actual text of their plan next week and maybe a markup and floor
consideration a week or two after that.
Really? Don't you think we owe it to our constituents to have
thoughtful, open debate on this legislation which will impact every
single one of them?
I guess not.
Democrats agree that our tax system needs to be updated, to be more
fair, and especially to be more fair to the middle class and to working
families. We have always been willing to engage in real bipartisan tax
reform, but the Republican tax framework is not tax reform. It is just
one more GOP multitrillion-dollar giveaway to the wealthiest at the
expense of the middle class and working Americans.
In all my time in Congress, I have never seen a budget and a tax plan
that harms so many just to benefit so few. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this rule, to vote against this cruel Republican budget, and to
oppose a tax plan that puts wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent
ahead of hardworking middle class families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to mention at the beginning that we
might be debating the details of the tax reform plan that does not
exist today. I see that we are, in fact, going to do that.
There are a lot of studies out there on this tax reform plan that
does not yet exist, but let me tell you that we can all agree that we
have the single least-competitive Tax Code on the planet today. We can
all agree that with the click of a mouse, a company can transfer its
assets overseas and grow jobs there instead of growing jobs here.
Let us have the debate that we want to have about who should bear the
burden of American taxation. That is a legitimate debate and we should
have it. But let us not have the debate about whether foreign workers
should benefit or American workers should benefit from American
capital, because that answer should be clear in the hearts and minds of
every single Member of this Chamber.
We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go from worst to first. Now,
I confess that I don't actually expect to get all the way to first. I
will settle for getting up in the top five and getting out of the
bottom five when it comes to being able to lead in this country. But I
want to mention, Mr. Speaker, what I think is a source of frustration
of constituencies on both sides of the aisle, and that is the us-
against-them conversation that goes on day in and day out.
I looked at the chart my friend from Massachusetts brought down to
the House floor. It happened to be in university colors of Georgia's
red and black, but I can see that as a representative of all the
hardworking families in my district, that chart didn't do anything to
inspire me about the impact of tax reform going forward.
My friend quoted the Tax Policy Center. Now, The Wall Street Journal
called the Tax Policy Center a shill for those groups that don't want
to see any tax reform of any kind, but that is currently. The Tax
Policy Center has been doing research for a long time. The research my
friend from Massachusetts quoted was a study of a bill that does not
yet exist. The research I am going to quote is of historical tax rates
in this country.
What my friends at the Tax Policy Center said is that about 30
percent of Americans--one-third of Americans--pay no income taxes
today; that the Tax Code, as it exists today, protects them from any
tax liability at all.
Now, what we are proposing when we get into fundamental tax reform,
Mr. Speaker, is to double the standard deduction. For those families
that are already claiming the standard deduction, we are talking about
doubling it. Now, the brackets are still in question, the details are
still in question, but we are talking about doubling the number of
folks who don't have to deal with the IRS at all.
Today, about 30 percent of American families don't pay any income
taxes,
[[Page H8159]]
and that same 30 percent gets a refundable tax credit that rebates to
them their entire Social Security and Medicare contribution that they
make and the entire Social Security and welfare contribution that their
employer makes on their behalf.
Now, these are not my numbers; these are the Tax Policy Center's
numbers, that a full third of Americans aren't paying one penny in
Federal income tax or Federal payroll tax of any kind.
{time} 1245
Now, I am not here to debate the wisdom of that, Mr. Speaker. I am
here to tell you that I don't know how much lower I can cut taxes in
that group. I don't know how in the world I can lower the tax burden on
folks who are not only paying no income taxes, but are having all of
their payroll taxes rebated to them also.
Is this a group we should talk about, Mr. Speaker? Should we talk
about folks who are grabbing onto the bottom rung of the economic
ladder and struggling to climb to the top?
We should, and we do.
Should we talk about how it is that the entitlement system, the
benefit system in this country, is trapping people at the bottom of the
ladder and not allowing them to climb to the top?
We should.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be misleading to the
American public to suggest that this tax bill is focusing its attention
in one direction instead of another direction. The fact simply is that
I can't lower taxes any more at the bottom of the spectrum.
We are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. That doesn't
inspire many people. I have that conversation regularly: Rob, what in
the world are you doing lowering taxes on corporations?
I support the FairTax, and in the spirit of folks who are not
particularly enthusiastic about tax reform, I am not in that camp. I am
enthusiastic about tax reform. I just thought there was a better way. I
couldn't get the votes to have my better way done.
My better way is the FairTax, and what I would say to you is
corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes. They
collect taxes from their consumers in the form of higher prices, from
their employees in the form of lower wages, or from their shareholders
in the form of lower capital--lower capital returns.
Now, lest you think: Rob, you are just a conservative Republican from
the Deep South. What do you know about this?
I will again quote the Tax Policy Center, which says that a full 20
percent of the corporate income tax burden falls on workers. Fair
enough. If we want to argue about where the tax rates are going to end
up and how the cuts are going to look and what the policies are going
to be, let's have that debate.
Let us not mislead the American people into believing there is a free
lunch anywhere in this Tax Code. We have an opportunity to move from
worst to first, and every single American, regardless of their region,
regardless of their politics, is going to benefit from that change.
They benefited from it when Democrats and Republicans came together to
do it in 1986, and they will benefit from it when we come together and
get it done today, as I believe that we will. We must.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, boy, I don't even know where to begin after that.
My good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, made reference to the Tax
Policy Center, and I have the report from the Tax Policy Center here.
In fact, it is their analysis that was the basis for that chart that I
held during my opening remarks, which said that the top 1 percent would
receive 80 percent of the tax breaks based on the Republican framework.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record excerpts from the Tax Policy
Center report.
[From the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center
Staff, Sept. 29, 2017]
A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework
Abstract
The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of
the potential impact of proposals included in the ``Unified
Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.'' We find they
would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years
and $3.2 trillion over the second decade (not including any
dynamic feedback). In 2018, all income groups would see their
average taxes fall, but some taxpayers in each group would
face tax increases. Those with the very highest incomes would
receive the biggest tax cuts. The tax cuts are smaller as a
percentage of income in 2027, and taxpayers in the 80th to
95th income percentiles would, on average, experience a tax
increase.
The findings and conclusions contained within are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or
policies of the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution or
their funders.
Alternative Ways of Presenting Change in Distribution of Tax Burdens
by expanded cash income percentile
Expanded cash income percentile, Percent change in after-
tax income, Share of total federal tax change (%), Average
federal tax change, Dollars, Percent, Share of federal taxes,
Change (% points), Under the proposal (%).
Panel A: 2018.
Lowest quintile, 0.5, 1.1, -60, -10.4, 0.0, 0.9; Second
quintile, 0.9, 4.1, -290, -9.3, 0.0, 3.8; Middle quintile,
1.2, 8.2, -660, -7.2, 0.2, 10.1; Fourth quintile, 1.2, 11.6,
-1,110, -5.5, 0.6, 18.7; Top quintile, 3.3, 74.5, -8,470,
-9.6, -0.7, 66.5; All, 2.1, 100.0, -1,570, -8.6, 0.0, 100.0.
Addendum.
80-90, 0.8, 5.1, -1,140, -3.1, 0.9, 15.1; 90-95, 0.7, 3.3,
-1,500, -2.6, 0.7, 11.4; 95-99, 2.3, 12.8, -7,620, -6.9, 0.3,
16.4; Top 1 percent, 8.5, 53.3, -129,030, -17.6, -2.6, 23.5;
Top 0.1 percent, 10.2, 30.3, -722,510, -20.4, -1.7, 11.1.
Panel B: 2027.
Lowest quintile, 0.2, 0.8, -50, -5.4, 0.0, 1.0; Second
quintile, 0.5, 3.0, -230, -5.0, 0.1, 4.1; Middle quintile,
0.5, 4.9, -420, -3.4, 0.4, 10.2; Fourth quintile, 0.4, 4.3,
-450, -1.7, 0.9, 17.3; Top quintile, 3.0, 86.6, -10,610,
-8.5, -1.3, 67.4; All, 1.7, 100.0, -1,690, -6.7, 0.0, 100.0.
Addendum.
80-90, -0.4, -3.5, 820, 1.8, 1.2, 14.4; 90-95, -0.3, -1.5,
760, 1.1, 0.8, 10.3; 95-99, 1.8, 11.9, -7,640, -5.3, 0.2,
15.4; Top 1 percent, 8.7, 79.7, -207,060, -17.4, -3.5, 27.2;
Top 0.1 percent, 9.7, 39.6, -1,022,120, -19.0, -1.8, 12.2.
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation
Model (version 0217-1)
The full report can be found at: http://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/
144971/a preliminary analysis of the unified framework 0.pdf
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, where did I get this figure about adding
to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? Did I just make that up?
I will tell the gentleman where I got it from. It is basically the
Republican report in the Senate on the budget. Let me read from their
report here.
It says: ``This title includes two reconciliation instructions to the
Senate committees. The first would allow the Finance Committee to
reduce revenues and change outlays to increase the deficit by not more
than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.''
These are the words of Republicans in the Senate.
The gentleman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan. It
is because we are presented here with a budget that essentially fast
tracks a tax plan. He is right, we don't have all the details yet
because it is being negotiated and written in some back room somewhere
in this building. I wish I knew where it was so we could maybe try to
find out some more details. But what we do know is the framework that
the Republicans have put forward, and that is the basis for the
analysis that economist after economist have stated that this budget
basically is a giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country,
and it is not somehow a break for the middle class. It is the exact
opposite.
This is a gift for billionaires and millionaires, and it does nothing
for working families. That is why this is all relevant. This budget
puts in place procedures for the Republicans to fast track a tax bill
that they are now writing in some back room somewhere that nobody will
see probably until the last minute, and basically it will be rushed
through here, and it is a big giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in
this country. I just wanted to clarify that for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that Republican plans for tax reform would
also eliminate the State and local tax deduction, called SALT. This
deduction prevents millions of middle class families from being taxed
twice on the same income by deducting already-paid State and local
taxes from their Federal income tax.
Half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle class families
earning a household income of less than $100,000, and local communities
will also feel that pain.
[[Page H8160]]
Repealing the SALT deduction, which would effectively make State and
local taxes more costly for taxpayers, would put pressure on local
governments to lower taxes.
The bipartisan National Governors Association said in a September 22
letter that the SALT deduction, ``has contributed to the stability of
State revenues that are essential for providing public services.''
These services include healthcare, police and fire departments, and
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the National
Governors Association.
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, September 22, 2017.
Re Tax Reform (State and Local Tax Deduction and Municipal
Bonds).
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways & Means, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,
Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Hatch, Ranking
Member Wyden, Chairman Brady, and Ranking Member Neal: The
nation's governors appreciate congressional efforts to reform
and improve federal tax policy. Federal and state tax systems
are complex and often interconnected. Therefore, as Congress
considers reforms, we urge you to maintain the balance
between state and federal tax systems by preserving the
income exclusion for municipal bond interest and the
deductibility for state and local taxes.
The financing engine that drives U.S. infrastructure is the
$3.8 trillion municipal bond market. Changes to federal laws
and regulations should not increase issuance costs to states
for municipal bonds or diminish investor demand for them. If
federal changes make issuing municipal bonds cost-prohibitive
for states and local governments, then fewer projects could
be funded, taxes could rise, fewer jobs created, and economic
growth will suffer.
Governors also believe that no federal law or regulation
should preempt, limit, or interfere with the sovereign rights
of states. A mark of sovereignty includes the ability to
develop and operate revenue and tax systems. Deductibility of
state and local taxes has contributed to the stability of
state revenues that are essential for providing public
services. We encourage you to avoid changes to the tax code
that would undermine the ability of state and local
governments to meet the needs of the citizens whom we all
serve.
Eliminating state and local tax deductibility, moreover,
exposes a higher share of an itemizing taxpayer's income to
federal taxation because it adds back mandatory payments of
state and local taxes already paid, as taxable income.
Federal tax reform requires an intergovernmental
partnership because decisions at the federal level will
affect state and local governments profoundly. We look
forward to working with Congress on bipartisan tax reform to
maintain balance between our systems and modernize the
federal tax system to meet the needs of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Gov. Brian Sandoval,
NGA Chair.
Gov. Steve Bullock,
NGA Vice Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Members to vote to defeat
the previous question; and if we do, I will offer an amendment proposed
by Representative Schneider that would prohibit any legislation from
limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal and to discuss
the importance of the State and local tax deduction, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been outspoken
on this issue on behalf of States and communities and middle class
taxpayers.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there are some real terrible parts to this
budget, but this, to me, is the worst.
This deduction has been part of our tax system before there was an
income tax, going back to the Civil War, for the very reasons that my
friend from Massachusetts just talked about. It wasn't just picked off
the shelf. People count on it. People count on this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule,
the previous question, the budget, the weather, whatever.
We know that this budget resolution paves the way for a tax reform
bill done through reconciliation. I am sure that is interesting.
Reconciliation on Governor Street in Paterson, New Jersey. I am sure
they want to know reconciliation when we are talking about their
pocketbooks; a dubious maneuver that blocks us Democrats completely out
of the process and allows Republicans to pass a purely partisan,
juiced-up bill.
Comprehensive tax reform is a goal we should all share, and lasting
tax reform should be bipartisan. My friend from Georgia, I think,
believes that, but this ain't it.
While they are cutting deals behind closed doors, what we are pushing
is eliminating the State and local tax deduction, and that is in the
Senate budget. They wrote it right out, the Capito amendment.
Republicans are so adamant about eliminating this middle class
benefit that they added an amendment to that budget before us today,
the so-called Capito amendment.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A vote for this rule is a vote for the
budget, is a vote to repeal the State and local deduction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues representing New Jersey, New
York, Illinois, California, Minnesota, and so many other States,
including Georgia, including Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, better think long
and hard about their vote today.
The American people are watching to see if they vote to raise their
taxes. This amendment, the Capito amendment, in the budget falsely
claims that the SALT only benefits high-income taxpayers. Let's take a
look at that.
The fact is that repealing it would hurt the middle class and working
families. At the same time, how do you justify--through the Speaker,
how do you justify keeping the deduction still viable for corporations?
They can deduct the State and local taxes, but the families of America
can't? How can you justify that?
I want to hear your justification of that. That is going to be a good
one.
Forty percent of taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000,
more than 70 percent of those making $100,000 to $200,000, claim the
State and local tax deduction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I will make it short, but I could stay
here all afternoon on this because I feel it in my bone marrow.
We are talking about tax cuts. We are increasing the tax burden on
the middle class, and you cannot deny it. There is no place in that
budget that you can deny it. None whatsoever. You could say: Well, we
are going to do this over here and this.
Look, I am tired of that walnut trick. Okay? Have you figured out
which it is under?
Groups representing realtors, mayors, teachers, firefighters,
sheriffs, et cetera, all support retaining the State and local tax
deduction. It is bad policy, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you, we have enough ammunition. We don't
need this ammunition for next year. Let's think about the budget of the
American people in a nonpartisan way.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you have wondered what kind of passion we have on the
Budget Committee, I will just once again recognize how much I enjoy
serving with my friend from New Jersey on
[[Page H8161]]
the Budget Committee. Everything you just heard from him was from the
heart. I get to hear it in committee day in and day out, and I will
tell you, we end up with a better product as a result of that. It is a
legitimate debate to have about the State and local tax deduction. It
is perfectly legitimate.
There are those from low-tax jurisdictions that ask: Why would the
Federal Government and the Federal taxpayer want to subsidize those
States that are higher-tax jurisdictions? There are those jurisdictions
that are low-tax jurisdictions.
Because the gentleman's constituency in New Jersey makes so much
money, they pay so much more in Federal income taxes. And States like
mine in Georgia, States like Alabama, States like Mississippi are the
beneficiary of those dollars as the Federal Government distributes
them. Undeniably, there is a case to be made on both sides of this
issue.
The falsehood, Mr. Speaker, is to suggest that we are deciding that
issue today. We are not. We are not.
I don't blame any of my colleagues for fighting for their
constituency at the height of their ability, at the highest vocal point
of their capability, because issues are, at their core, local and
personal to each and every one of us.
We are going to have to have this conversation and we are going to
have to sort it out, and I believe it is not going to be a partisan
conversation. In fact, I know it is not going to be a partisan
conversation.
I know Republicans who share my friend from New Jersey's opinion, and
I know Democrats who share Shelley Moore Capito's opinion on the Senate
side. We know this to be true. We are going to sort this issue out, Mr.
Speaker.
What I fear, though, is that emotions are going to run so high that
we are going to miss an opportunity to figure these things out. For
example, to conflate personal deductions with business deductions is to
create confusion where there needn't be any.
Every business in America can deduct the meals that they serve
throughout their day as a business expense. I will share with the
gentleman that my family cannot deduct our meals from our income taxes.
Every business out there that has rented an apartment somewhere in
order to conduct business, they can deduct that rent from their income
taxes as a business expense. I will share with my friend, in the great
State of Georgia, I am unable to deduct my rent as a business expense
from my income tax.
There is just a fundamental difference between families and
businesses, and that fundamental difference goes back to what I said at
the very beginning, and that is there is only one taxpayer in this
country. It is not Walmart, it is not Apple, it is not Microsoft. It is
the American consumer. We are the only ones. At the end of the day, the
buck stops with each and every American family.
The debate over how to structure a corporate income Tax Code, Mr.
Speaker, is perfectly legitimate. To suggest that the fact that the
personal code and the business code look different and that is somehow
nefarious is to deny what is just now over 100 years of income tax
policy in this country.
{time} 1300
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. So, now that you have agreed to the fact the families
are going to get shafted but corporations will continue to be able to
deduct their local and State taxes, this is pertinent to the budget, my
friend, through the Speaker.
Right in the bill, the budget bill we are talking about right now,
the rule, previous question, related to changes in Federal tax laws,
which may include reducing the Federal deduction such as this--this is
right from the budget. Why do you say we are not discussing this?
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my friend, Mr. Speaker, what you
hear is absolutely right. I want to make that clear. Everybody is
entitled to their own opinion; they are not entitled to their own
facts. The words my friend is reading are absolutely accurate. What
they are not are absolutely binding. That is what they are not.
What this is is such a personal and important issue to folks on both
sides of it that it got its own personal line out of the United States
Senate.
I can't even get nominations out of the United States Senate, Mr.
Speaker. I am sitting here trying to staff out region four down in the
great State of Georgia. Folks are delaying debate. Folks won't let me
get my people in place.
This is so important to the United States Senate that it came with
its own line.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to diminish the importance of this issue on
either side. What I do want to insist upon, though, is that it will not
be decided during this hour today; and I want to insist, Mr. Speaker,
that it will not be decided on partisan lines.
I would just ask of you, Mr. Speaker, and of my friends here on the
floor, we have two things we can do with our voices: we can either sow
consensus, or we can sow discontent.
I know that we are passionate about these things in which we believe,
but to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to come together and
sort it out and do the very best we can for Americans is to sell this
institution short and is to further the misunderstanding, the
misimpression, the misinformation that the media sends out about us
every day. I know we are better than that, and I am proud to be a voice
saying that here on the floor today, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to respond.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, families in my friend's State, the great
State of Georgia, will lose a tax deduction of $9,000, those families,
on average. I think you are concerned about that. You cannot fib that
you are not.
And the fact of the matter is you used the words--through the
Speaker, you used the words that your States are subsidizing the donor
States? Well, let me give you an idea of New Jersey.
States like West Virginia, the average SALT deduction claim is $9,463
per household; in Ohio, it is $10,445; in Wisconsin, it is $11,653.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, and
this will probably have to be it because, unfortunately, we have so
many speakers over here. I wish I could enjoy the loneliness that my
colleague from Georgia enjoys that nobody wants to speak to defend this
budget.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, 48th, 49th State, that is where New Jersey
is in getting back the money we send down to Washington. Who subsidizes
whom?
And Mnuchin, go back and tell the Secretary of the Treasury he
doesn't know what he is talking about. He says New Jersey is being
subsidized? Not these numbers; the numbers don't show that.
You can't defend this. You can't defend it under any circumstances
whatsoever, and you have admitted that we are talking facts here today.
I rest my case.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the underlying rule that would allow for consideration of
the Senate-passed Republican Budget. If passed, this budget would allow
Republicans to fast-track their tax plan through Congress without
Democratic support.
Now, I stand in support of a tax plan to help the middle class, but
that is not the tax plan we are seeing proposed by Republicans.
Instead, we see that 80 percent of the benefits will go to the richest
1 percent in this country. The problem? Somebody has to pay for it, and
it looks like it could be the middle class.
I have heard from workers worried that cuts of contributions to their
401(k) plans will ruin their retirement. I have heard from seniors
worried that losing homeowners' incentives will make it harder for them
to stay in their homes. And I have heard from families worried that a
repeal of the State and local tax deduction will increase their tax
burden.
[[Page H8162]]
In fact, we know that one-third of the middle class will see their
taxes increase under this plan. And the numbers show that, as our
constituents begin to learn more, they are realizing that this plan
only cuts taxes for the wealthy and corporate interests and leaves
middle class families behind. That is why a Reuters poll released
yesterday found that fewer than a third of Americans support the
Republican tax plan at all.
This tax plan for the rich will increase the deficit by $2.2
trillion. And who will pay for it? Your children and their
grandchildren. They will have to suffer from the cuts made down along
the line to education, to Medicaid, to Medicare.
And for what? To make the rich richer? To line the pockets of
Washington special interests? That is not right.
Reject this budget. Most importantly, reject this tax plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard a lot about the distributional analysis of tax reform,
and, as I have suggested, it is hard to do. Folks who make a whole lot
of money, like my friend from New Jersey's constituency, they pay a
whole lot more in taxes. I hope that one day my constituency makes as
much money as my friend from New Jersey's constituency, and if we can
stimulate the economy the way that I believe that this tax proposal
will, we are going to have a shot at getting that done.
But we have to have these conversations about limiting tax deductions
for the wealthiest Americans if we are going to solve the issues that
my friends have raised. And reading right out of that Senate budget
report, the whole purpose of considering the State and local tax
deduction and considering modifying it, capping it, eliminating it,
whatever you want to insert there, Mr. Speaker, is designed around
limiting those tax deductions that only benefit the wealthiest among
us--that only benefit the wealthiest among us. That is the conversation
that folks are trying to have.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is so much more that we agree on than that
we disagree on in this Chamber. But it appears, time and time again, we
come to the House floor and focus, in the most shrill voices, on the 20
percent of those things that divide us instead of the 80 percent of
those things that we could come together and deliver on for our
constituency.
Tax reform doesn't have to pass with 51 votes in the Senate. We move
reconciliation bills through the Senate with 60 votes. We have moved
them through the Senate with 70 votes. We have moved them through the
Senate with 80 votes.
Growing the American economy, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense goal that
is shared in every single region and in every single political quarter.
Let's not make this about us here. Let's make this about our bosses
back home. We can, and we should, and I believe that we will.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member on the Tax Policy Subcommittee
of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly about one thing and one
thing only. It is about lavishing tax breaks on Donald Trump
personally, his family, and all of his billionaire buddies. It is about
lavishing tax breaks and incentives on the very same giant
multinational corporations that have shipped away so many American
jobs, that have refused to pay their fair share of our national
security by hiding their profits in offshore island tax havens.
It is about doing all that and hoping that, at this time of the year,
here at Halloween, that they can trick American middle-class families
into believing that a little of those tax benefits will trickle down to
them. Because if they can do that, if they can pass this bill, they
will treat themselves, the billionaires, and the job exporters, to tax
benefits of almost astronomical proportions.
To suggest that there is anything bipartisan about this bill or
anything bipartisan about the tax proposal that Republicans will unveil
next week is truly a farce. There is no bipartisanship here.
They learned nothing from their failed healthcare repeal efforts. No,
they plan to use surprise, jack-in-the-box tactics to pop out a bill at
the last minute, force it through this House, through our Ways and
Means Committee, and foist it off on the American people.
With Halloween coming, there is a simple ``trick or treat'' test that
you, as an American family, can use. If you are in the top 1 percent,
you get 80 percent of the individual benefits out of this bill.
So just look at your income. If you are not up there in the $700,000
or $900,000 range, don't count on getting much benefit out of this
bill. In fact, a number of studies show your taxes may actually go up
while others see a significant decline in the revenue the richest few
are asked to pay to finance our country.
And what about the idea of growing jobs? After all, growing our
economy is what we should all be about and what is claimed for this
bill. Well, I turned to that objective source, Goldman Sachs, the home
of the Treasury Secretary and top economic advisers. Goldman Sachs,
within the last month, has advised its own investors: Don't expect much
out of this tax bill because any momentary growth at the beginning will
be offset by the trillions of dollars of additional debt from the same
people who have been telling us for years we can't afford another
dollar for abused children, and we can't afford dollars for children's
healthcare because we are so very worried about the national debt.
Well, there is reason to be worried about the national debt and not
to explode it by trillions of dollars with this giant unpaid tax bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. A zombie of supply-side economics is returning from the
dead. We know it didn't work for President Bush. We know it didn't work
in the Reagan era. They are bringing it back again, saying, if you just
give a little more to those who have so much already, it will benefit
everyone else. The data does not show that.
This is a tax bill that needs to be rejected because it is so unfair
and inequitable to the American people. This is much worse than the
healthcare repeal because its ramifications in leading to cutting
Medicare and Social Security will be far-reaching. There will not be a
family in America that goes untouched.
Reject this budget. Reject this awful tax bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to agree with some of what my friend had to say.
There will be absolutely no family that goes untouched. If you would
like to go to the Council of Economic Advisers web page, Mr. Speaker,
you can see their most recent report, which suggests, on average,
$4,000 in additional wages for every wage earner in this country, every
family in this country, making a difference for economic growth.
We all know that economic growth matters. More jobs mean more
pressure on labor. More pressure on labor means higher wages. Higher
wages mean more income for the Federal Government in taxes and more
income for families to put into their pocket.
We are hearing about zombies and surprises and tricks. You can tell
that Halloween is right around the corner, and scaring folks is kind of
the tagline of Halloween, Mr. Speaker; and, sadly, that is what we see
going on here today.
I promise you, you have not heard a single bipartisan word about this
tax plan from my friends on the other side, so I am going to provide
those words for my friends. I will read from yesterday's Wall Street
Journal, Mr. Speaker: ``In 2012, President Obama and his advisers
proposed lowering the corporate tax rate because it `creates good jobs
and good wages for the middle class folks who work at those
businesses.' ''
{time} 1315
We can argue about what the tax reform ought to look like. What we
can't argue about is the benefit for American families of tax reform.
In 2013, Lawrence Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and
[[Page H8163]]
Chairman of President Obama's Economic Council, argued that the tax on
corporate profit creates a burden without commensurate revenues for the
government, and that changing it is as close to a free lunch for the
American taxpayer as reformers will ever get. That was President
Obama's Treasury Secretary.
Again, we can argue about what it looks like. What we can't argue
about is what it is intended to do and what leading experts believe it
will do. In 2015, Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republican Rob Portman
cosponsored a Senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which
is the highest of the 35 countries in the OECD today.
As Chuck Schumer says: ``Our international tax system creates
incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas, rather than
creating jobs and economic growth here in the United States.'' We can
fix that together, and we will fix that together.
Bill Clinton, in 2016, said he regretted raising the corporate tax
rate to its current level for exactly those reasons.
Who is advantaged by trying to persuade the American people that
something nefarious is going on here? Who is advantaged by that? I
don't know about my friend's constituencies, Mr. Speaker, but my
constituency wants to believe we are making things work together. My
constituency wants to believe in rolling up our sleeves and sorting
things out together. My constituency wants to believe that we are
united in making a difference for them together.
We have this opportunity. If we pass this rule and we concur in the
underlying Senate amendment, we will move forward on tax reform that
will leave no American family behind.
The best government program we have in this country is the program
that allows jobs to develop so folks can have one. The best program we
have in this country, Mr. Speaker, is one that allows wages to rise so
that folks can earn more. My constituency is not looking for anything
from the other side of the aisle except cooperation on freeing up the
marketplace so that my constituency can go to work, so that folks can
go and make their own pathway and future forward. We can do it in ways
we haven't done together since 1986, Mr. Speaker.
Who is advantaged by convincing folks that cooperation, consensus,
making a different together is dead? I don't believe anyone. In fact, I
would tell you that not just the debate but the body politic is damaged
by those concerns, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will join together and refute those. I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia, we don't need
lectures on cooperation and bipartisanship. We have offered to work
with Republicans on tax reform. We have offered to work with
Republicans on improving the Affordable Care Act. Every time the
Republicans talk about rolling up their sleeves, we are not there. We
are not invited.
So if you want bipartisanship, open up this process. Go back to
regular order. Hold hearings. Listen to our ideas. Don't write bills in
the back room and rush them to the floor and force the Members up here
to vote up or down on them. Yes, we want cooperation. We want
bipartisanship, but we don't need any lectures from anybody on the
other side of the aisle.
This has been the most closed Congress in history. We don't need any
lectures on the importance of cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I rise in
opposition to the underlying budget--a budget which is really a budget
buster that could be before the full House for consideration tomorrow.
It calls for an additional $1.5 trillion worth of debt accumulated
over the next 10 years. They call for that, I fear, in order to clear
the path for unpaid-for tax cuts. There is a bipartisan path to move
forward on tax reform. It has been 31 years since we have taken a
serious run at the Federal code. It is long overdue. It is one that
would simplify the code, that would broaden the base and lower the
rates and make us more competitive at home, but especially abroad, in
light of what the rest of the world has done.
That can also help promote economic growth, but I fear that that is
not the direction that the opposing party is taking with their tax
reform proposal. I say fear because we haven't seen the details yet. So
we can't say with certainty just what exactly will be offered over the
next couple of weeks. But if history is any guide, there is a
proclivity to pass large tax cuts that are not paid for.
If history is a guide, we have been down this road before, in the
1981 tax cuts, the 2001, the 2003, that promised to bring a boon of
economic growth that would offset and pay for the lost revenue. It
didn't materialize. Instead, we had huge budget deficits.
Unfortunately, today, we don't have the luxury of time to help us
recover from a huge fiscal mistake. Because today, 70 million baby
boomers are beginning their massive retirement and joining Social
Security and Medicare--10,000 a day.
If we go down this route of going with massive tax breaks that aren't
paid for, we are going to jeopardize the long-term solvency of Social
Security and Medicare at exactly the wrong moment in our Nation's
history. The folks back home tell me they would like to see tax reform
along the lines that I just described, but they are not telling me that
they are more interested in trickle-down economics where the
predominant relief goes to the most wealthy, hoping that it somehow
benefits everyone else.
Now, they would like to see it a little fairer for working families,
for small businesses, for family farmers so that they can share in the
economic growth and the prosperity that could be offered if we do this
the correct way in a bipartisan fashion.
But instead, I fear that we are going to be witnessing history repeat
itself. But unlike the time of the past, we don't have the luxury of
time going forward without jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare,
and without leaving a legacy of debt once again for our children and
grandchildren to inherit.
So let's regroup. Let's do a budget that makes sense for the long-
term fiscal solvency of important programs, but especially our
children's future. This budget doesn't get us there.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject the rule and reject the
budget if it comes up tomorrow.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I actually want to associate myself to my friend from Wisconsin's
comments. I can't disagree with a word he said right up until it got to
the end where he said to vote against the budget. Right up until there,
we were on the same page.
There is so much that we could do together. My friend spoke out on
behalf of small businesses and family farmers. As the Tax Code exists
today, when you see my friends put up charts about tax benefits going
to the top 1 percent, they are talking about those small business and
family farmers. They are talking about that small business in my
district that has plowed every single penny back into the business--
back into the business for new technology to make their employees more
productive, back into the business to open up a new facility, back into
the business to add more distribution, because they have got 350
families who depend on them to make that business successful so that
those 350 families can put food on their table.
But when the Tax Code is analyzed, Mr. Speaker, when the IRS sends
back the statistics, that small business in my district that sends
every single penny back into the business, they look rich. They look
like they are the wealthiest, and they are not. They are those small
family farmers. They are those small family businesses that are trying
to make a difference.
I want to say, because my friend from Wisconsin had a very
significant concern about blowing holes in deficits, Mr. Speaker, as
you know from your experience, one cannot pass tax reform that is
permanent through reconciliation if it adds to deficits in the out
years. That is what is so wonderful about this process, Mr. Speaker. I
support what my friend from Wisconsin said about keeping an eye on
deficits. I
[[Page H8164]]
support what my friend said about making sure Medicare and Social
Security are growing, which they do when people go back to work and
when folks earn more money.
I don't want to be in the business of lecturing my colleagues, Mr.
Speaker. I want to be in the business of working with my colleagues.
But folks have a choice when they show up to work every day. Are we
going to make this a day about arguing with one another? Are we going
to tear something down today? Are we going to build something up today?
I stand for building something today, Mr. Speaker. Unabashedly, let's
build something together today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways
and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly, my constituents in Texas would
like to see the same spirit of togetherness that we have just heard
about. How has that been handled in our Ways and Means Committee, and
why do I call the claims of bipartisanship here a farce?
Well, people in Texas would like to know: What is the effect of being
taxed on our payment of property taxes? People in Michigan want to
know: What is the effect of putting a cap on how much we can contribute
to our retirement savings? Other people were concerned about adding
$0.20 and a border adjustment tax to every purchase made from Mexico,
or Canada, or elsewhere.
Since May, I have been asking for hearings on these matters. I have
been asking for one single Trump administration official to have the
courage to come in front of our committee and answer questions about
their proposal and the great gap between what President Trump says one
day, and what they do the next.
They have refused every day. We have been here all of September. We
have been here all of October. They have refused to have a single
hearing with a single Trump official because they plan to jam through--
while they yell ``kumbaya,'' they plan to jam through a gift to the
superrich and the multinationals that keep shipping these jobs
offshore. And they don't want any accountability for it.
They don't want any public involvement either. They want the public
to know as little about the details of their sham as possible. That is
why they will have it introduced next week, passed in committee the
following week, forced onto this floor and into the Senate, and the
American people have to understand and speak up and say ``no.''
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say I don't
want to sneak anything past anybody. I want to claim full and total
credit for what we are about to do together. I don't want anybody to be
confused about whose fault it is. It is my fault.
When we get tax reform and get this economy growing again, blame me.
When we can see wages rising in this country again, blame me. When we
have an opportunity to go from worst to first in the international
business community, blame me.
I don't want anybody to believe there is anybody hiding here, Mr.
Speaker.
I share with my friend from Massachusetts that I do not have any
speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close when he is. Truth needs
no defense, I would say to my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically
pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires.
Again, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned the nonpartisan Tax Policy
Center in his opening remarks, and this chart is based on their
analysis. Basically, let me repeat, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of
all the benefits.
If you think that that is fair, if you think that that is
representing your constituents, then go ahead and vote for this budget,
because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this.
I don't think it is fair. I don't think anybody on the Democratic
side of the aisle thinks it is fair, and I am hoping that there are
some on the Republican side of the aisle who think that that is not
fair as well.
The gentleman from Georgia talks about cooperation and about we need
to get along. I mean, who disagrees with that? But actions speak louder
than words. You can't talk about open, transparent processes and then,
as we just heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), have the
Ways and Means Committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed
doors without any help from the Democrats, but having no hearings--not
allowing any administration official to come up and testify.
How is that an open and transparent process? How does that encourage
the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? I mean, I thought my
friends would have learned from their terrible experience with their
repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act what happens when you
write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without even
the committees of jurisdiction, by the way, in that case, deliberating
on what the final product should be.
I thought you would have learned from that process, and you ended up
failing at the end of the day. I hope that this effort that my
Republican friends are now undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people
in this country, I hope that that fails as well.
A lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. My friends on the
other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. In
the Rules Committee, almost virtually everything is closed. Everything
is shut down. Germane amendments routinely deny the ability for Members
to offer them on the House floor because the Republicans don't want to
deal with them. They are afraid they might lose. They don't want to
have the debate.
If you want cooperation, if you want a bipartisan tax reform bill,
then you just can't say it; you have to do something. In 1986, the last
time Congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full
committee hearings spanning over a year. There were 26 days of markup
between September and December. This time, the timelines being reported
in the press are maybe just a week, or a little bit more, if that.
{time} 1330
Again, if recent history is any indication, we might not even get
that. A bill might just miraculously appear one day and be rushed to
the floor so that no one has time to read it or analyze it and so that
none of our constituents have time to understand what is really
happening here.
So I go back to that chart. One percent--1 percent--of the wealthiest
interests in this country get 80 percent of the tax breaks.
If you think that that is fair, then vote for this budget, because
this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward.
If you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits
and debt, please vote ``no'' on this budget, because this allows us to
increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion.
Whatever happened to deficits matter? I guess it is inconvenient
because tax cuts for billionaires matter more than deficits and passing
on that debt to our kids.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to
vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on this budget, and to fight
like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the
Republican side are pushing. This is bad policy. This is bad for our
country. This is bad for middle class families. This is bad for not
only my constituents, I would argue it is bad for your constituents.
It is about time that the people's House starts enacting legislation
that benefits the people of this country, not just a few who are well
off and well connected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wish I could bring school groups down here
onto the House floor just to help the next generation understand why we
face some of the challenges that we face. We are down here today
confronted with a tax bill that folks are certain is going to give away
everything to everybody whom they don't want it to go to, and we are
down here confronted with the fact that there is
[[Page H8165]]
no tax bill whatsoever to look at and it is going to get sprung on
folks with absolutely no notice and no ability to read it.
Now, either one of those things could be true. It happens to be that
neither of those things is true. But how in the world do folks
listening to this debate think that we are advancing the cause of
reform?
Deficits do matter, to my friend's point. They do matter, and the
stranglehold that the Obama regulatory economy created here in America
on economic growth reduced economic GDP growth by a full one-third--by
a full one-third.
For every 0.1 percent of GDP growth, we talk about 200 billion
additional dollars coming in to the Treasury over the 10-year window.
So a full percentage point that we have lost is $2 trillion coming in
to the Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, if we had Bush-era growth instead of Obama-era growth
over these last 5 years, the budget would be balanced today. But we are
where we are, and the question is: Can we do better tomorrow? We can.
Now, before I talk about that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some
of the folks who helped to get us here. My friend from Massachusetts
and I come down here and carry the debate, but the work goes on behind
every single one of these doors and in every single one of these
committee rooms.
I serve on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and our staff director
over there, Rick May, has done an amazing job shepherding this process,
standing up for the House's work product.
Jenna Spealman, Andy Morton, Tim Flynn, Robert Cogan, Patrick Louis
Knudsen, Jim Bates, Mary Popadiuk, Jonathan Romito, and Elise Anderson
are all working day and night--and weekends, many times--to get this
product to the floor.
Steve Gonzalez, Eric Davis, Robert Yeakel, Ellen Johnson, Emily Goff,
Brad Watson, Brittany Madni, and Steve Waskiewicz are folks, Mr.
Speaker, who don't come here because they have political passion; they
come here because they have policy passion. They want to do those
things that matter. They could go anywhere they want to in town and
make more money, but they stay here working for the American people
because they believe they can make a difference, and they are right.
Mr. Speaker, they are right. They can make a difference. We can make
a difference. This rule--this rule--if we pass it today, Mr. Speaker,
will allow us to concur in the Senate amendment. Concurring in the
Senate amendment does not bind us to the Senate process, but it enables
us to move a bill that direction that they can process.
We have seen the holdups in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I am not happy
about that. That is just the way Senate process is. We can do better.
Reconciliation allows us to do better, and passing this rule enables us
to do better.
Vote ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, and vote
``yes'' on the underlying budget and open yourself up to doing together
what has not been done together in 31 years. I don't just believe we
can, I believe that we will. I am excited about it, I am proud of it,
and I am ready to get to it, Mr. Speaker.
Vote ``yes.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I
rise in strong opposition to Rule governing debate on the Senate
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for
Fiscal Year 2018, and the underlying resolution.
Let us be very clear and direct: the resolution before us is not
intended to reconcile tax and spending priorities to reflect the
priorities of the American people or to reduce the deficit and national
debt or to put our fiscal house on a sustainable path to economic
growth.
Rather the sole purpose of Republicans bringing this job-killing
budget to the floor today is to fast-track their ``Billionaires First''
tax plan, which will cause significant harm to working and middle class
families, especially to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional
District of Texas.
The McConnell-Ryan tax plan, which this budget resolution is designed
to grease the skids for, would raise taxes on about 1.5 million Texas
households, or 12.4 percent of households next year.
On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794
increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families
struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.
An estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state and local
taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.
The McConnell-Ryan plan eliminates this deduction, which would lower
home values and put pressure on states and towns to collect revenues
they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.
The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions
of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and
claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions
were claimed in the Lone Star State.
Equally terrible is that the McConnell-Ryan tax plan drastically
reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7
million low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet
with an average credit of $2,689.
The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans,
including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.
This reckless and irresponsible GOP tax plan is made all the more
obscene by the fact that 80 percent of the GOP's tax cuts go to the
wealthiest 1 percent.
To achieve this goal of giving more and more to the haves and the
``have mores,'' the GOP budget betrays seniors, children, the most
vulnerable, and needy, and working and middle-class families.
For example, the Republican budget steals hundreds of billions of
dollars from critical job-creating investments in infrastructure, job
training, clean energy and research and development.
It devastates Medicare and Medicaid by cutting $500 billion from
Medicare and $1.3 trillion from Medicaid, hurting veterans, seniors
with long-term care needs, children and rural communities.
The GOP budget's steep cuts in program investments fall most heavily
on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors,
and persons with disabilities.
This Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage
because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of
healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions,
and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.8
trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.
This Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for
replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the
purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto
seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to
Medicare over ten years.
Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it
is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.
The values expressed by this Republican budget are not the values of
my constituents, the people of Texas, or the American people as a
whole.
For these reasons, I oppose the Rule and the underlying budget
resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 580 Offered by Mr. McGovern
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019
through 2027, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the
Budget or her designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with the amendment specified in section 2 of this
resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows: At the end of the Senate amendment, add the
following new section:
``SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES
TAXES ON MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING
OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report that repeals or limits the State and
Local Tax Deduction (26 U.S.C. 164).
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).
[[Page H8166]]
(c) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order,
as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point
of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 188, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 582]
YEAS--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Amodei
Bishop (UT)
Bridenstine
Espaillat
Garrett
Gutierrez
Larson (CT)
Long
Lowenthal
Richmond
Rooney, Francis
Smith (NE)
Thompson (CA)
Webster (FL)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1357
Mr. MESSER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
[[Page H8167]]
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Bridenstine
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Long
Lowenthal
Richmond
Schrader
Smith (NE)
Thompson (CA)
Webster (FL)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1405
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________