Connected Government Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my dear friend, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I would offer my thanks and collegial admiration and respect to the members of the Rules Committee who, last night, once again, on an expedited basis, spent time devoted to the duty that they have not only to their party, but also to the House of Representatives acting on behalf of the American people.

The gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings; the gentleman, Mr. Polis; and certainly our friend from Worcester, Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, conducted themselves not only in the highest of spirit, but they also produced what I believe was a fair argument, a product that they could be proud of. Each of the witnesses that came before us, including Democratic Members of Congress and Republican Members of Congress, provided, I believe, top-notch testimony and information on behalf of their ideas.

I personally want to thank Judge Hastings for his time last night, which was late into the night, and today. My admiration and respect for his collegial activity is to be respected and appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Last November, the November which was 1 year ago, the American people spoke, and they spoke clearly. I believe they stood up and demanded change and action on our economy. They demanded an increase in understanding about America's lack in GDP growth, and they saw all across the country companies that continue to move overseas. They saw movement in our economy where people moved from one State to another seeking better opportunities.

I believe that the American people have spoken. We not only heard that, but we are trying to make decisions now that would not only help every single area of the country by picking those businesses that might be in the city, in the town and location that they want to be, but by infusing them with the opportunity to stay, to stay because they can not only make a go of it, but they can be competitive in the world market.

Lowering tax rates in this country will help the middle class of this country. It will help jobs and job creation. That is why we are here today. We are here today as a Republican Party where we are trying to work with the President of the United States, the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives to speak clearly about not only what we stand for, but our hopes and dreams for a better opportunity for all Americans tomorrow and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers on those promises that I just spoke of. This is a bold, progrowth bill that will overhaul our Tax Code and unleash the free enterprise system not just in my home State of Texas or in my city of Dallas, but, really, everywhere where business wants to be, it can flourish in an unfettered way because we are now going to be competitive. It lowers tax rates on all businesses of all sizes so job creators can focus on not only their product and sales, but they can hire more people, increasing paychecks and growth.

Growth actually is the key to what we are talking about today. Economic growth brings abundant opportunity: opportunity for people not only to have a job, but to have a career, control their own lives and make sure they can live where they want to live and so they can make their community stronger. That is this Republican viewpoint of what we are trying to get at, Mr. Speaker.

With the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, today's broken Tax Code here in America forces many businesses to move their jobs, research, and headquarters overseas seeking opportunities in a world environment of competition where they can survive and they can become more competitive. A corporate tax rate of 20 percent encourages American companies to bring their jobs back to the United States, opening up opportunity. This decrease is fundamental to making the United States more competitive once again.

The number one reason why America is not competitive in the world is no longer because of energy costs; it is no longer because we have the highest priced employees, no, sir. It is because Uncle Sam, State, and local taxes make it noncompetitive, which creates a higher cost as we compete around the globe.

This legislation will modernize the international Tax Code, also bringing back opportunities for American companies that want to bring their profits back home and encourage U.S. businesses to bring foreign earnings home, unleashing what will be, over some period of time, trillions of dollars that can come back home.

It reduces the tax burden on all passthrough businesses regardless of their structure or their sector. This legislation provides tax relief for job creators and creates capital investments, investments that will drive growth, once again, of paychecks and opportunities for growth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a direct and immediate boost for middle- income Americans who have been struggling to get by, let alone get ahead.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear today how we are going to have a new tax bracket. All Americans until they, as individuals, earn $12,000 and two working people at home earning $24,000 worth of income will not pay tax on that. It is intended entirely to help the middle class of this country.

H.R. 1 is about the entrepreneur, the family of four, the small- business owner, and the American people. The United States is already the greatest place in the world to live. We are proud to be Americans. But we have to be competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the tax benefits in this legislation go directly to the middle class. The American people want and need, I believe, to learn not only more about this bill, but how it will incentivize them to Make America Great Again.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observations. We don't have 4\1/2\ years to work through the process that he talked about. The American people want and need something done right now.

I say to the gentleman that he is right, the economy is roaring--and it has been roaring since the day Donald Trump won the election--with an expectation of performance.

Why are we doing this now? Why at Thanksgiving? Why at the end of the year?

We are going to see that American business, as it makes plans for the future, is going to look up and say: We have got a better shot at keeping jobs here. We have got a better shot at being competitive here.

I think what is going to happen is you are going to see this boom, this big opportunity that is already well underway, to continue. But it is up to us to deliver that. It will be one party. It will be those pesky Republicans that will get it done. We are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a gentleman who participated for hours in the Rules Committee debate last night and is one of our most valuable young Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what a delight it is for me to stand up and say that, the work we are going to do today, the President of the United States will sign. He is encouraging what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the National Federation of Independent Business--that is ``The Voice of Small Business'' in America--and also what is called a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

National Federation of

Independent Business,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation

of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small

business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of

H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This legislation will

provide much needed tax relief to America's job-creating

small businesses. H.R. 1 will be considered an NFIB Key Vote

for the 115th Congress.

Small business is the engine of the economy, and tax reform

should provide substantial relief to all small businesses so

they can reinvest their money, grow, and create jobs. Ninety-

nine percent of all American businesses are small businesses;

the average NFIB member has just 10 employees. Taken in sum,

however, small businesses create half of all private-sector

jobs in the U.S. and contribute half the nation's gross

domestic product.

Three-quarters of small employers are structured as pass-

through entities, meaning their owners are taxed at the

individual rate as opposed to the corporate rate. Crucially,

H.R. 1 reduces the tax rate on the smallest pass-through

businesses to 9 percent over five years, without industry

exclusions or restrictions.

NFIB supports passage of H.R. 1 and will consider it an

NFIB Key Vote for the 115th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to

working with you to protect small business.

Sincerely,

Juanita D. Duggan,

President & CEO, NFIB.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1--Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--Rep. Brady, R-TX, and 24 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1, the Tax Cuts and

Jobs Act. Passing the bill is an important first step in

achieving comprehensive tax reform that cuts taxes for hard-

working families and puts the Nation's economy on a path of

higher economic growth. The President's priorities for tax

reform have been consistent from day one: (1) cut taxes for

middle-income families; (2) simplify the Nation's complicated

tax system; and (3) reduce business taxes so that American

employers can create jobs, raise wages for their workers, and

better compete with foreign businesses.

H.R. 1 would deliver meaningful tax cuts for middle-income

families by nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering

tax rates, increasing the child tax credit, and creating a

new Family Flexibility credit. It would simplify tax filing

so that the large majority of Americans could file their

taxes on a single page. The bill would also cut the corporate

tax rate to 20 percent--below the average tax rate in the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Finally, H.R. 1 would lower taxes for millions of S

corporations, sole proprietors, and partnerships that pay

taxes at individual rates.

Based on a review of more than 100 academic papers, the

White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) estimates that

the corporate provisions in H.R. 1 would grow the economy by

between 3 and 5 percent over the next 10 years, which if

applied to 2027 Gross Domestic Product projections, would

result in an additional $700 billion to $1.2 trillion in

economic output per year. CEA also found that the same

provisions would increase average household income by at

least $4,000 annually.

If H.R. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors

would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, the President's priorities and tax reforms are consistent and have been from day one.

Tax cuts for middle class families, simplifying the Nation's complicated tax system, and reducing the burden of taxes so that American employers can create jobs, raise wages, and better compete with foreign businesses, that is what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a gentleman who serves on the Financial Services Committee and a distinguished young Member of our majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), from the Ways and Means Committee. At this time, we are putting the A-team up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, for his exemplary work and the work of his colleagues on the Rules Committee and my colleagues also on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, our previous speaker, the gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania, Mike Kelly, had it best when he said: `` . . . an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.''

What he did not say is--that will be in the record--is that John F. Kennedy said this on December 14, 1962, 55 years ago, in an address to the Economic Club of New York.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there have been a lot of people here who have given testimony, I think testimony that they intended to sway the voters and those listening in this country that the Tax Code that we have works just fine, but then they spoke about the frailties of that and they talked about jobs going offshore, they talked about jobs and economic activity going somewhere else.

I, being from Dallas, Texas, hear stories every day about people who are coming to Texas, coming to north Texas, coming because of the economic climate that will allow them and their companies to have a better shot at not only being competitive, but, as Mike Kelly said, to be winners in this economy, at the very top of the heap rather than at the bottom of the heap.

What this common denominator is, is that my State of Texas does do the things that this bill does also. It keeps taxes low, it creates opportunity.

By the way, how many poor people create jobs?

I don't know.

How many of those who really have incentive and entrepreneurship create jobs?

A ton of them.

We are going to grow entrepreneurs out of today. We are going to grow young people getting out of college, veterans leaving the military coming back and seeing where they can make a go of it. Instead of it being a 95 percent failure rate of new business--which is what it is, it is a heavy bar because of rules, regulations, and taxes--we are going to make it easier.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers based their review, as they provided the economic outlook to us, on more than 100 academic papers, estimates that corporate provisions in this tax bill alone will grow our economy, not leave us in 23rd place, as Mike Kelly said.

Who wants to be in 23rd place?

If you want to be in the top 25 and you are comfortable, sorry.

We want to be at the top. We want to Make America Great Again. We want to be able to say that businesses all over the United States stand a chance, and that is what this does.

The Council of Economic Advisers says that this will grow the economy between 3 and 5 percent.

Whoops. They got comfortable with 1.2 over 8 years. I am not comfortable and the American people aren't comfortable either.

We are going to add some $700 billion to the economy this next 10 years. That is the guess, that is what Republicans want to do, but it is based on a lot of factors, it is based on hard work.

America has the best, most innovative workers in the world. We want to put this together with an opportunity, because we have a great place to be: the United States of America, any of our States. We have the best energy policies in the world and we have the best price. We have the best workers. We have tool kits with our universities. Our industry will grow back and reinvest in themselves.

We are going to take our Tax Code and take what is $5.6 trillion worth of tax areas and move that where it will boost our economy. We will become pro growth again. Yes, we heard that it was John F. Kennedy, it was Ronald Reagan, and it is going to be making America great again.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation in order to boost middle class Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, yielded me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through obfuscation, mathematical gimmicks, and a rushed and closed process, and all in an obvious attempt to hide from the American people the devastating consequences the Republican-led tax scam bill will have on working class and middle class Americans.

Just so we are all crystal clear on this point: Who, under this tax bill, benefits on the backs of working and middle class Americans? Yes, folks, it is the wealthy corporations and the richest among us.

The Republican majority has made lofty claims about their bill, saying that because of this legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, jobs will be plentiful, and that the economy will grow exponentially and astronomically. The White House has even said that the tax cuts would result in each household receiving an additional $5,000 to $9,000 in annual income.

Mr. Speaker, it seems there isn't anything that Republican leadership won't say to get their own Members to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, they can make all the claims they want, but the actual tax experts who have analyzed this bill paint a much darker picture about the consequences of this legislation. According to one nonpartisan tax analysis, today's Republican plan will result in a tax increase for 38 million middle class Americans.

Not to worry, though. While these hardworking middle class families have to deal with the tax increase, the richest 0.2 percent of Americans will get a windfall. In fact, the estate provision in this bill alone would allow the heirs of just 11 ultrawealthy individuals to pocket up to $67.5 billion. An estimated 80 percent of the tax cuts in this legislation will go to wealthy corporations and the richest 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, even more astonishing, a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that this Republican tax bill could trigger automatic cuts to mandatory spending to the tune of $136 billion, including $25 billion in the Medicare cut.

Let that sink in, because actually what is getting ready to happen here is we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and these deficit hawks on the other side are then going to turn right back around and say that we need to pay for these things. Then watch out Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, because that is the objective, in my view, in the first place.

In order to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and corporations, my Republican colleagues are not only raising taxes on the middle class, but are now potentially triggering a $25 billion cut to Medicare.

If this inequity were not staggering enough, Americans also have to keep in mind that today's Republican tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy is not only on the backs of the middle class, but also future generations, as this bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are making the tired excuse that these cuts will pay for themselves. If they did, then we would have the easiest jobs in the world. Just cut taxes, and magically we will have even more revenue to pay for the important needs of our country. That sounds a lot like the old trickle-down-which-never-worked economics. It sounds that way to me, and we all know that as far as economic theories go, that one was and is a complete and total dud.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize the majority's attempt to overhaul our Tax Code for the first time in 30 years: they raise taxes on middle class Americans, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and manage to explode the debt all at the same time--all this while also leading the most closed Congress in history and shutting out Members of Congress who represent nearly half of the American people.

Hear that, America: a lot of your Representatives had no opportunity to say or do anything regarding the measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Speaker, let us step back and really get a full view of how callous this bill is for our Nation by looking at how the bill treats middle class Americans versus its treatment of the ultrawealthy and corporate America.

Under this Republican tax scam bill, a working class schoolteacher who buys supplies for his or her students would not be able to deduct that expense, but a corporation that buys supplies for itself would be able to use such a deduction.

Under this Republican tax bill, a middle class homeowner would see their property tax deduction capped at $10,000, but a corporation would not face the same cap.

Under this Republican tax bill, if a worker was forced to relocate for his or her job--footnote there, including the military--because the company moved or, in the case of the military, they were relocated, he or she would not be able to deduct that moving expense; but if a corporation decided to relocate, even to relocate overseas, it will be able to deduct its moving expense.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. But we shouldn't be surprised. As the old adage goes, bad process makes for bad policy.

Not since the Republicans' failed attempt to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans have we seen a process that is this bad.

Take, for example, the last time Congress passed major tax reform legislation in 1986 and what that process looked like. During that effort, the Ways and Means Committee held a month of public hearings and took testimony from over 450 witnesses.

The legislation before us now has had no--zero--public hearings and testimony from no--zero--expert witnesses.

During the last tax reform overhaul, the Ways and Means Committee spent 26 days marking up the framework of the legislation. This time around, Republicans spent only 4 days marking up the legislation.

The 1986 legislation framework was released a year before it was passed in the House. In contrast, the framework for this bill was released less than a month before they started today's process of jamming their final bill through the House. There were no hearings and no amendments made in order. From start to finish, there was less than a month of actual consideration.

Much like the majority's rushed healthcare processes that produced an abysmal, destructive bill that would hurt working class Americans, this rushed process has produced a tax bill that benefits corporations and the wealthiest Americans, all while managing to raise taxes on the middle class and adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is lurching from one bad bill to the next with speed--not thoughtful policy--seemingly being the only goal. It begs the question: What is the rush?

As a matter of fact, I don't even think we need a tax bill of this consequence. According to them, the economy is roaring, unemployment is low, interest rates are low. So what is wrong with certainly leaving the wealthy in the category that they are in?

Why are my Republican colleagues setting an arbitrary deadline of passing a tax bill by Thanksgiving, instead of focusing on thoughtful policy and getting the substance right in a bipartisan fashion?

Everyone agrees that we need to do something about the Tax Code. Democrats have been ready to work with Republicans on this effort, but have been shut out of the process at every turn. Why?

The only logical conclusion is that this has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. It has nothing to do with helping the middle class, but instead is a callous political maneuver aimed at salvaging a stalled and ever-failing Republican agenda.

We are about to end the year with nothing having been done of consequence. Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. This conclusion is not based on my own opinion. Some of my Republican colleagues have admitted as much.

When asked about the need to move on to tax reform quickly, one of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle was heard to say: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' ''

Likewise, on the other side of the Capitol, one Republican has stated that, if the Republicans fail on tax reform, just as they did on healthcare, financial contributions will stop.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think politics should dictate our efforts to reform something as significant as the Tax Code. Our guiding light should be to help working folks get a leg up. The only way to do that is to work in a bipartisan, deliberate manner, hearing from experts and the American people, as they did in 1986, and not as my Republican friends have done this time around, spending a mere 3 weeks, with no hearings, no bipartisan efforts, simply to give us something done before Thanksgiving.

That approach only gets you what we have here before us today: a bill that, in my opinion, does more harm than good to middle class Americans and puts our country further into debt.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. He happens to be a Democrat, so he didn't have much input here. He is the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, I pointed out to my colleague from Alabama, whom I greatly admire, that he has a number of people claiming medical expense deductions who won't be able to do so under this tax measure. The number of them, in fact, is 22,052, and the total amount claimed under medical expense deduction by them previously was $186 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished colleague who I sit next to on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is like old home week from the Rules Committee people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a good friend who used to serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is old home week here with the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), another former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), who served in the Pennsylvania Legislature and was chair of appropriations. He really understands this stuff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a real champion and a mentor of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I will go home this week and tell people I voted against this horrible bill. And I will wonder if the last speaker would go home and tell the 11,249 people who utilize $131 million in medical deductions who will not have that under this bill, understanding that it could be different if they chose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a newfound friend and a rising star.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am prepared to close and would advise the chairman of that regard.

Mr. Speaker, a new Quinnipiac poll out yesterday shows the American people aren't falling for the Republican tax scam. Only 25 percent approve of this plan, just 16 percent think it will reduce their taxes, and only 24 percent said the Republican plan will help the middle class the most.

Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the American people, throw this dangerous plan in the trash can, where it belongs, and let's work together on a bipartisan plan to help all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction, which prevents millions of families from being taxed twice on the same income.

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.

First, my Republican colleagues attempted to jam an abhorrent healthcare bill through Congress. They failed. After that failure, they moved on to today's attempt to jam an abhorrent tax bill through Congress. For the sake of middle and working class Americans, I hope my Republican friends ultimately meet defeat once again.

Mr. Speaker, we set the record with this particular measure of 51 closed rules in this session, the most closed rules in the history of Congress. What that means is a lot of the Representatives who had good ideas, more than 100 of them that offered amendments last night, were unable to be heard because of closed rules.

After this closed, disgraceful process, this Republican majority has presented, in this instance, a piece of legislation that skews tax cuts in favor of the ultrawealthy and rich corporations.

Now, let's make it very clear. Wealthy people shouldn't be disrespected for their wealth, but I don't know any wealthy people who are knocking down my doors, saying that they need a few more thousand dollars. But I know a lot of poor people who need a few hundred dollars, and this particular measure is not doing many of the things that would allow for them to be able to get on that last rung of that ladder and lift themselves up.

I heard the gentleman say a rising tide lifts all boats. They had the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show,

the largest one in the world, the week before last. All those yachts were lifted, but those little dinghies with the people fishing out in Lake Okeechobee were not lifted one doggone bit by this particular measure.

This bill does so on the backs of middle and working class people and future generations.

With this bill, the former deficit hawk Republican majority would add $1.5 trillion to the debt while potentially triggering $25 billion in cuts to Medicare. I might add that is where they are headed. Look out Medicare, look out Social Security, look out Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a blog post regarding this bill written by Congressman Pallone and myself.

[From the Energy & Commerce Democrats, Sep. 13, 2017]

It's Time To Give the Government an Upgrade for the Mobile World

(By Frank Pallone, Jr. and Robin Kelly)

In the wake of the natural disasters devastating so much of

the country, millions of Americans are turning to federal

agencies for help--but the government's websites don't always

make it easy. We've introduced legislation in the House that

would change that, and it's moving forward at a time when it

can help a lot of Americans who are suffering.

For people who were forced from their homes or are without

power because of hurricanes, storms or wildfires, their only

connection to necessities of survival--food, water, fuel, and

shelter--is through their mobile phones. It's the device they

could take with them when they had to flee their homes. But

while private websites and charities have developed new

mobile websites and apps to help those who are still

struggling, many of the essential government websites on

which people depend are essentially unusable on a phone.

During any natural disaster, we expect the government to be

at its best. But for people whose homes have been flooded,

burned out, or leveled, trying to navigate government

websites on their phones likely feels like a waste of time.

For instance, if you need to start looking for a loan to

rebuild your home, good luck trying to use your phone to

navigate the website for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. If you need to reach state or local authorities,

the problems get worse. And asking people to hunt down a

working desktop computer right now is just unreasonable.

Although these natural disasters are making this problem

more acute, the need for a

government-wide upgrade is only growing more important every

day. That's because the people who need the most help are

often on mobile devices. If you are young, if you have a

lower income, or if you are a minority, you are much more

likely to use a smartphone as your only entry point to the

internet.

The gap is significant--people earning less than $30,000

were 13 times more likely in 2015 to depend on a smartphone

than people earning more than $75,000. Yet websites that are

intended to strengthen the social safety net like programs

providing food assistance are nearly inaccessible on a phone.

A smart government brings services to people when they need them most--

not the other way around

Last year we crossed a significant threshold--Americans are

now more likely to access the internet on their mobile device

than on their desktop computer. If people rely on mobile

devices, our services should be designed for mobile devices,

and that's why agencies with consumer-facing websites should

be designed with an eye towards mobile first. These mobile

sites can make it easier for people who may not have the time

to wait in line at a government office.

In order to bring government up to speed, we have

introduced the Connected Government Act, which ensures that

all new federal agency websites are designed to work well on

mobile devices. These federal sites would serve as an example

to the states who need to do more to modernize their own

technology. This simple change can have a big impact--from

shorter lines and faster service, to providing more help to

more people. Mobile friendly websites will ultimately help

build a stronger democracy.

Today, our bill is expected to clear a crucial committee

vote in the House. And our colleagues Senators Maggie Hassan

(D-NH) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) recently introduced a

companion bill in the Senate. With this progress, our path to

a smarter government is within reach. Congress should act

soon to get this bill passed.

In the wake of these recent disasters, we need to ensure

that anyone looking for assistance from a federal agency can

get the information they need through their mobile device.

This is the least we can do to help alleviate some of the

stress people feel in times of need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the coleader on this bill, Congressman Frank Pallone, who has been a strong supporter every step of the way, from the bill's drafting through today's floor consideration. I also thank my good friend Congressman Mark Meadows, a cosponsor of the bill, and I thank Senator Hassan, who introduced the Senate companion.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill that will ensure all government websites are accessible to all Americans. It simply requires that any new or updated Federal websites be mobile friendly. It is 2017. We need Federal websites to work for all Americans.

In the past 90 days, there were 2.61 billion visits to Federal websites. Almost 40 percent of those came from mobile devices. That is over 1 billion hits from mobile devices like tablets and smartphones. But today, according to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 40 percent of government websites don't work on smartphones or are mobile unfriendly.

Alarmingly, many of these sites are critical to serving the American people, like the application for Federal student aid and the launch point for bidding on Federal Government contracts. For millions of Americans without access to reliable broadband or without a desktop computer, smartphones are their doorway to the internet.

A recent Pew report found that younger Americans, low-income Americans, rural Americans, and people of color are more likely to rely only on smartphones to browse the web.

Today, 77 percent of Americans own and use smartphones to access the internet. For 10 percent of Americans, it is their primary access to the internet. That is 32 million Americans. It is unacceptable for 32 million Americans to have difficulty reaching their government simply because we couldn't keep up with technological trends.

Recently, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria showed just how vital smartphones have become, especially during disasters. In the aftermath of these storms, millions of Americans relied on their smartphones to find assistance. Imagine the frustration of navigating SBA, FEMA, or HUD websites, looking for assistance on a 5-inch screen, and the site not working because it is only designed for desktop browsing.

In my time serving as the ranking member of the Information Technology Subcommittee, it has been clear that the Federal Government's IT systems are not working and have not kept up with even the most basic technology trends that are common in the private sector.

Americans deserve a modern American Government that is accessible and responsive to their needs. This bill takes us one step closer to realizing this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill that the CBO has said will have no significant cost to taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.

Today, the House of Representatives is considering tax reform for the first time since 1986.

In the last 31 years, the world has changed a lot and it is time that we bring the Tax Code into the 21st century. This needed tax reform will put our country on a path to long-term economic stability and help hardworking families around the country get ahead.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help American families in important ways. First, it focuses on Americans in the middle of the earning scale by doubling the standard deduction and creating a new family flexibility credit for nondependents. Taxpayers will be able to deduct even more from their taxable income, reducing the need for tedious itemization.

In addition, the bill repeals the alternative minimum tax. This tax was never intended to be as broad as it has become, but because it was not indexed for inflation when it was introduced, many of us find ourselves having to calculate our taxes twice to see if we are ensnared by the alternative minimum tax. It is time for this one to go away.

With decreased taxation, American families have more money in their pockets, resulting in greater contributions to the economy.

The bill also alleviates some of the cost of raising children by expanding the child tax credit. It preserves the adoption tax credit so parents can continue to receive additional tax relief as they open their hearts and their homes to an adopted child.

This bill reduces the number of tax brackets from seven to four, with rates of zero, 12, 25 and 35 percent for most taxpayers. It does preserve the 39.6 percent rate of the previous administration for the highest earners. These reforms will help simplify the Tax Code and make it more competitive for hardworking American families.

I am grateful the Ways and Means Committee kept the step-up in basis, despite repealing the estate tax by 2024. The step-up in basis is an important component of estate planning when people are planning for future generations. This will allow people who may experience a tragedy to continue ownership of family property without bearing excessive penalties.

Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of the flat tax. I have introduced H.R. 1040 in every term that I have been in office, but I recognize this bill makes a lot of needed reforms and repeals some credits while maintaining those important to American taxpayers.

Donors will still be able to make tax-exempt charitable contributions, employers will still be able to contribute to 401(k) retirement savings accounts, new homeowners will be able to deduct the interest expense on up to $500,000 of a mortgage, and no changes are made as to Social Security.

I was actually hoping we could lower Social Security taxes. We couldn't. But we certainly do not increase Social Security taxes, despite what some of the fake news says.

Students will continue receiving a credit through the consolidated American opportunity tax credit.

Simply put, this bill will promote growth at middle-income levels, create a more favorable business environment, and continue important tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from Thomas Barthold to Chairman Kevin Brody:

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, November 14 2017.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Brady: You asked me to comment on the changes

made by H.R. 1 as ordered reported by the House Committee on

Ways and Means in the context of Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI of

the House of Representatives.

Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI sets special passage requirements

for measures that amend subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), or

(e) of section 1 or section 11(b) or 55(b) of the Internal

Revenue Code in a manner that imposes a new percentage rate

of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by

such section. H.R. 1 amends the relevant sections by

eliminating the 10-percent bracket, which is obviated as a

marginal rate as a result of the increase in the standard

deduction provided in section 63(c) and makes general changes

to the income thresholds at which the varying tax rate

brackets apply and eliminating several other tax rates of

present law. These changes combined with the increased value

of the child tax credit (in section 24) result in virtually

every taxpayer who formerly would have been in the 10-percent

tax bracket having a lower tax liability under the changes

that would be effectuated by H.R. 1 than they would under

present law.

Similarly, H.R. 1 eliminates the present-law 33-percent

marginal tax bracket. As a result there are some taxpayers

who would claim the standard deduction and had his or her

last dollar of income taxed in the 33-percent tax bracket

under present law but under H.R. 1 after claiming the

increased the standard deduction would have their last dollar

of income taxed in the 35-percent tax bracket. However, in

each such case the taxpayer's total income tax liability is

lower under H.R. 1 than under present law. For taxpayers who

eschew the standard deduction under present law there is

substantially greater variability in resulting tax

liabilities. With the elimination of some deductions that

taxpayers may elect to itemize under present law, it is not

possible to say in all cases that these taxpayers have lower

total income tax liability under H.R. 1 than under present

law. However, by comparison to the case of a taxpayer

claiming the standard deduction, the variability of these

results is clearly a consequence of the changes to the tax

base effectuated by H.R. 1 rather than a consequence solely

of the elimination of the present-law 33-percent bracket.

Because the House rule does not contemplate changes to the

Internal Revenue Code as a whole and the interactions such

changes have on tax liability, H.R. 1 requires a waiver of

the rule's provisions. In its totality, the combined effect

of the tax rate and income threshold amendments made by the

bill, along with the increase in the standard deduction,

would not, in and of themselves, result in an increase in the

amount of tax imposed on virtually any filer as a result of

these changes.

I hope this discussion is helpful. Please contact me with

any questions.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rule for Rules Committee Print 115-39, to H.R. 1, ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.''

The underlying bill will cut funding for programs that the American people need by $5.4 trillion over 10 years.

It will raise the deficit by $2.2 trillion 10 years.

This is bad for America.

The chief motivation for House Republicans brings this bill before the House is to say they had a win before we break for the Thanksgiving Holiday.

This rule if adopted will allow the House to take up consideration of a bill that will cost taxpayers because it:

Eliminates the $4,050 personal exemption allowed to each taxpayer for their self, spouse, and each dependent child;

Raises the lowest individual income tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent

Reduces the tax rate corporations pay on existing offshore profits from 35 percent to 10 percent; and

Cuts the corporate tax rate paid by large companies.

The Jackson Lee Amendments to Rules Committee Print 115-39 were offered as means of improving the bill:

(1) The first Jackson Lee Amendment would delay the effective date of all revenue-reducing provisions in H.R. 1 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to Congress a report certifying that the areas covered by Presidential Natural Disaster Declarations for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have fully recovered economically, as measured by a gross domestic product that exceeds by 10 percent the gross domestic product for such areas in the fiscal year preceding the Presidential Disaster Declaration; and the deficit is zero.

(2) The second Jackson Lee Amendment would delay the effective date of all revenue-reducing provisions in H.R. 1 until the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits to Congress a report certifying that the number of U.S. adults without health insurance has not exceeded five percent for three consecutive quarters; and the deficit is zero.

(3) The third Jackson Lee Amendment preserves current law for deductions of student loan interest and other educational incentive.

(4) The fourth Jackson Lee Amendment preserves current law for taxpayer deduction of mortgage interest.

Our work should be focused on lifting people up and not taking opportunities away.

The $4,700 standard deduction for families will be eliminated by the bill governed by this rule to give a tax cut to corporations.

The recovery from Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma which impacted the Texas, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have long gone, but the efforts of people to reclaim their lives continues.

These families will need that $4,700.

In the State of Texas Hurricane Harvey is on record as the worst disaster to hit homeowners in the United States with over 148,000 homes and 163,000 apartments just in Houston impacted.

There are still 9,100 families in hotels and are in need of assurance that they will be able to return to their own homes.

We know that the costs of recovery will far exceed any natural disaster in memory.

We should set a national goal for extending health insurance coverage not looking for ways to destabilize the health insurance marketplace.

Because of the Affordable Care Act in the state of Texas:

3.8 million Texas residents receive preventative care services.

7 million Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance.

300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance until age 26.

5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on healthcare.

4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health insurance.

Today, insurance companies are banned from:

discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition

charging higher rates based on gender or health status

enforcing lifetime dollar limits

enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits

Savings for Texas Seniors on Their Prescription Drugs, Thanks to ACA:

Total Savings: $551,694,997

Total Gap Discount Amount: $201,876,665

Total Number of Beneficiaries: 233,114

Average Discount per Beneficiary: $866

Congress should support expansion of access to healthcare because it will save lives and relieve suffering of those who would otherwise not have care when they need it most.

Our nation is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. Growing demand for rental housing has resulted in higher rents. More families than ever before struggle to pay their rent each month, and every Congressional district and state across the nation is impacted.

The federal should continue its investments in homeownership that reduce homelessness and housing poverty are sorely underfunded:

Just one in four low income families eligible for federal housing assistance receives the help they need.

Comprehensive tax reform provides one of the best opportunities to end homelessness and housing poverty once and for all. As Congress considers comprehensive tax reform legislation, we urge you to seize this opportunity by reinvesting any savings derived from changes to the mortgage interest deduction into rental housing solutions for people with the greatest needs--not to offset the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

In doing so, we can make the critical investments that our nation needs to help America's families, our local communities, and our national economy thrives.

We know the key to reducing poverty and increasing economic mobility is access to safe and affordable homes. Increasing access to affordable homes bolsters child and family success, economic growth, wages, and productivity. And each dollar invested in developing and preserving affordable homes boosts local economies by leveraging public and private resources to generate income--including resident earnings and additional local tax revenue--and supports job creation and retention.

Congress as in the past should continue to champion homeownership because the benefits that comes to families and communities.

Our nation should be reinvesting these housing dollars into deeply targeted programs that serve people with the most acute housing needs.