Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall this very quaint time when some of us arrived in Congress when the legislative session would wind down. There would always be this stellar photograph of the Speaker of the House and the Republican leaders and the Democratic leaders and the Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States Senate, who would be photographed on the front page of most major dailies on the phone speaking to the President of the United States, regardless of what the President's political affiliation might be.

So here we are closing the second session of the 115th Congress when we had time to do this. Instead, this is the second iteration of an irresponsible manner in terms of process that was offered to the Democratic minority in this House.

On Monday night, we got notice of this without even seeing the substance of the proposal that was in front of us. This is not the way regular order functions nor, as I have just referenced, the way that legislative sessions are supposed to conclude.

My friend--and I mean that with all sincerity--the chairman of the committee, noted that the American people are waiting to hear from Congress. Well, let me tell you this about these tax bills. It didn't take the wealthy long to hear from Congress. They heard from them right away, and the offering that they had was more concentrated wealth and more tax relief for people at the very top in America--taking that top rate from 39.6 to 37 percent, a cut in the corporate rate to 21 percent, doubling the estate tax, and here we are again with another vehicle that is not paid for.

So where do we find revenue right now as a percent of gross domestic product? It is at 16.4 percent. And we are hearing, well, just maybe this tax bill might bring us to 17.5 percent, when the historic battle tha the two parties have had in this House has generally been about between 18 and 19 cents on the dollar.

So a year later, what do we have in front of us? The same procedure: closed doors, no hearings, not one witness. And if you pick up some gossip in the hallway about what this is to include, that is generally conceded now to be a point of achievement.

So a year later, we are rushing another package through to correct the errors that were delivered in the first bill.

And, by the way, these were not small errors. A couple of them were big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Not one hearing, not one witness, not one piece of evidence documented to put in front of this committee.

So this is a last-ditch effort by our Republicans to revisit their tax law and ensure that it further benefits those who really are the strongest already in our society. They want to jam through some of these provisions to help corporations at the expense of shining some light on how we might have found a substantive opportunity to achieve a bipartisan outcome.

The American voters delivered a resounding rebuke last month, and our friends don't seem to understand what that message was about.

On election day, the tax bill polled that 49 percent were against and 41 percent were for. And if you think it was just a messaging problem, that would be a mistake. They should have joined with us to advance some very important matters that are in this legislation; and when we would have had an opportunity to fix these together through transparency, hearings, witnesses, I think we could have easily accomplished a different outcome.

I oppose this legislation because it is also not offset. For the third time this year, the party of fiscal rectitude that always lectures us when there is a Democratic President about balancing the budget went out and borrowed more than $2 trillion for the purpose of providing a tax cut to the people at the top--$2 trillion added to the budget deficits.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton did that? The outrage would have been empowering in this institution. We would have heard about it for years at a time. But, no, it is okay to do it and then call it juice to the economy.

Well, there are many items in here that we fully approve of, but we disagree with the approach that is being taken, and we disagree with many of the substantive matters that are being offered.

There is a national principle involved here, and that is, we come to the aid of all members of the American family when natural disasters settle in, not on a piecemeal basis. And we will, I assure you, try very earnestly and very quickly next year to address many of these same issues. And I guarantee you this, for all members of this committee, there will be hearings, and there will be witnesses, and it will be done in daylight to make sure that there is an opportunity for all to be heard, including our Republican friends.

To close on part of this measure as well, this bill significantly erodes the Johnson amendment by allowing certain tax exempt organizations to make political statements during the ordinary course of activities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

So this would allow now priest, rabbi, imam, minister, to stand at the pulpit and offer an endorsement of a particular candidate for public office.

What happened to Jefferson's wall of separation?

What happened to the idea that, unlike Europe and places like that where they have had religious strife for centuries, that we were able to avoid that because of the wall that Mr. Jefferson very skillfully constructed?

This is a dangerous precedent that threatens to politicize charitable and philanthropic organizations.

Finally, the health provisions in this bill do nothing to increase accountability for the device industry, employers, or health insurers. If we are going to provide tax relief to corporations, we should have guarantees that the savings will be reinvested in innovation; put more dollars in workers' pockets, and lower insurance premiums.

Another issue that is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker, is the following: Overwhelmingly, that tax cut went to share buybacks with corporations and dividends. It did not come to the benefit of people who needed tax relief every single day.

There are a number of provisions here that we find very supportable, but the idea that we are doing this in the closing minutes of the 115th Congress, I think, is objectionable to our side.

The proposal before us is not paid for. It did not go through the regular order, and I urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, who has served this institution with great distinction and dedication over many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the very assertive spokesperson from Napa Valley and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the always erudite Mr. Pascrell.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), well-known for her financial acumen.

Mr. Speaker, we don't object to the three brackets being lowered for the American people in the middle class. We object to the idea that there were no hearings on this and the top brackets were reduced, doubling the estate tax exemption, cutting the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. If you want to do that for people at the very end of the economic scale, we are in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, could we have clarification as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Speaker, so the holy grail of the tax cut was the constant reference to the stock market. That is what we have heard for the last year. I wonder about some of our Members, if they want to compare their 401(k) to what it was like in October of 2008. Or as we have witnessed that constant reference to the stock market, the stock market, the stock market, and a reminder that at the end of 2017, the stock market, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up to 24,719, and this afternoon, it is at 22,859.

Mr. Speaker, I call attention to that because of the chaotic nature in which this legislative body has functioned: no hearings, no witnesses, legislation crafted, we don't know where, brought to the floor, and then referenced as the achievement of a rising stock market.

So here we are again without one single hearing, rushing through another tax package that is not offset, and doubles down on the original law's skewed benefits for people at the top, again, without a markup or a single hearing.

A rushed process resulted in a failed product. And now, they want to duplicate that process with these changes proposed here today.

The bill includes a number of provisions that could have been reconciled very easily with our side enthusiastically, including the references that Mr. Kelly made to retirement benefits. We are all in.

But the hit on nonprofits--by the way, taking away benefits for parking for some of the nonprofits, is but another example of how this legislation actually lacked substance.

We can do much better. And I certainly want to encourage colleagues to oppose this legislation on process and policy, and just as I yield back, we on both sides here, are very fortunate to have exceptional tax advisers in terms of the staff members, and I want to thank Kara Getz for her work as the chief tax counsel as she moves to her new role in my office as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say Merry Christmas to all, but this tax bill does not help my enthusiasm. But I will still say Merry Christmas to all, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1181, I call up the bill (H.R. 88) to modify the boundary of the Shiloh National Military Park located in Tennessee and Mississippi, to establish Parker's Crossroads Battlefield as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill that is currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important tax and oversight legislation. This bill has key timely components, each of which will help our economy continue moving in the right direction and provide help to families and communities damaged by disaster.

First, I think it is simply irresponsible to wait until next year to deliver crucial tax relief for families in 14 States and territories who are struggling today to recover from this year's devastating wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and other severe storms. California alone, 17,000 structures destroyed; nearly 90 lives lost throughout the Carolinas; throughout these other States, so many families waiting to hear from Congress that they will receive relief now and not next year.

Both parties need to come together to help these communities rebuild, and rebuild today. This bill allows disaster victims to immediately access funds from their retirement accounts to begin their home rebuilding. It ensures losses from these disasters are immediately deductible and helps small businesses keep their workers on the payroll, even when their operations have been interrupted by these severe storms and wildfires.

Together, we can, we will, and we should help these communities rebuild today.

Secondly, working with the Senate, we have reached common ground on important retirement savings reforms. The House version of this bill already passed with many Democrats' votes. These reforms will help families save more throughout their lives, start saving earlier, while also helping our small businesses offer retirement plans to their valued workers.

This bill includes bold redesigns and restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service, the first bipartisan reforms to that agency in nearly two decades. Working together, Republicans and Democrats in the House passed this redesign package 414-0 earlier this year.

It is time now to send these reforms to the President's desk to ensure that the IRS is an agency truly focused on quality taxpayer service.

We are also offering bipartisan tax relief from some of ObamaCare's most damaging, harmful, and egregious taxes. Specifically, this bill provides relief from the Cadillac tax that punishes companies that provide good healthcare to their workers, the medical device tax that has chased thousands of jobs overseas, and relief from the health insurance tax and the tanning tax. These harmful taxes stifle innovation, reduce jobs, and increase the cost of families' health insurance.

This package also makes good progress on two temporary tax provisions that expired at the beginning of this year. Temporary tax policy is hardly ever good tax policy. We have an opportunity here to set a new tone for how we treat these temporary tax extenders moving forward.

Additionally, in this bill, we proactively eliminate any potential uncertainty for our churches and community groups so nothing distracts them from their core mission.

We have included a small number of straightforward, time-sensitive technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Technical corrections, as we know, are normal and traditional with any big piece of legislation, especially with rewriting the Tax Code. These small tweaks are important and will ensure our new Tax Code works as intended, to grow the economy and increase wages for middle-class families.

I urge all my colleagues to support these measures so we can send this important legislation to the Senate soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone in Congress is eager to get back to a full week of Christmas shopping, but I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) who represents a community devastated by disasters in 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a key member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), the leader of the retirement and savings portion of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize, under a Democrat majority, every American will be taller and smarter and better looking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), who helped lead legislation dealing with disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), an outstanding key member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

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

Mr. Speaker, today, what we have heard is: our feelings are hurt. They are really, really hurt. This didn't go through regular order, and so our feelings are really hurt.

Those who oppose that say: Look, we are trying to help families that are damaged by our disasters, thousands of them. I imagine those families who are looking at their homes that are charred and burned, and families who are living on the second floor of their home because it has been wiped out, I bet they would like some regular order to their life. I bet they would like things to go back to normal. I bet they would like to spend the holidays in that home, not safe and warm up here in Congress, coming up with excuses on how not to help them.

We are told it is shameless to help those who are victims of disaster, in Alabama, California, Florida, and Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, and North Carolina. It is shameless to help you. We can't be bothered, is what opponents are saying today. In South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, we are busy, opponents are saying: We have got holidays. We can't help.

I believe we ought to help. Every one of us, Republicans, Democrats, ought to provide this key disaster tax relief that those families and communities need.

We are told it is reckless to help families and small businesses save more earlier in life, but we know we are not a Nation of savers. We have got to do more to help them. We used to do that in a bipartisan way. We can do that today.

We are told we never heard of a bill that reins in the IRS, redesigns them to become a taxpayer first agency and protects our personal data. Yet, that bill passed this House 414-0 because we had leaders like Lynn Jenkins from Kansas and John Lewis from Georgia, who worked together along with the Senate to do really thoughtful work together. Both parties gave, and took, and found a good solution. That is in this bill.

We are told that we ought not delay these ObamaCare taxes, but Republicans and Democrats, together, have worked to do this in the past, and President Obama signed them as well.

And then we are finally told that there is an attack on women's reproductive rights. Here is what it is: in this bill we allow, when you find out you are pregnant and you want to get a little head start to start saving for your child's education, like preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, get a head start on saving for trade school or for college, we are told that somehow that is an attack on reproductive rights.

It is a head start just for families that want to save a little more, get one more year. Because today, you have to actually open an account in someone else's name and transfer it later. We are just saying, look, get a head start. If you want to start saving, we are with you. Do your very best for your child. We think that is important.

At the end of the day, I think we ought to put aside this temper tantrum and come together to help a lot of families in our country who need this help.

My guess is, if our Democrat friends get their way and manage to obstruct, they will take all of these elements right back up at the beginning of the year. It will be their idea and their credit. I will give them credit right now for it. I just think we ought to help people today, and that we ought not break for any holidays until we have really done the work that these people deserve.

As long as we are talking about people who deserve our appreciation, I want to thank our chief tax counsel Barbara Angus, who has done just a remarkable job leading an amazing Tax Policy Subcommittee, and staff who have done such remarkable work for the American people and for us here over the past 3 years.

I want to thank the staff director of our Oversight Subcommittee, Rachel Kaldahl--the whole team--who have done remarkable work in a bipartisan way, reforming the IRS; Stephanie Parks in the Health Subcommittee area, on these ACA taxes; and, Machalagh Carr, our general counsel, who shepherded us to the work today.

The bottom line is I think there are lots of ways we can work together to help the American people, especially those in need right now. This has bipartisan work, bipartisan thought. Let's join together and help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 88, a comprehensive package that in many ways will help millions of American families save more of their own money for their future.

Among H.R. 88's many important features is a section that includes key elements of three retirement savings bills that I have been proud to introduce and champion over the last 2 years.

One of those bills, the Family Savings Act, stood as one of the three main pillars of Tax Reform 2.0, which passed this House with bipartisan support in September. With H.R. 88, much of that bill, along with my bipartisan Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act and bipartisan Rightsizing Pension Premiums Act, is one giant step closer to becoming law.

In short, this package is a wonderful gift at Christmas for all Americans, and it cannot come soon enough.

Americans should be able to rely on three main sources of retirement income to ensure full financial security during their retirement years: first, Social Security; second, personal savings; and third, employer- sponsored savings plans.

Now, when it comes to that third source, an alarming number of Americans do not have access to an employer-sponsored 401(k) plan. Among those who do, a recent study found that 42 percent of them have less than $10,000 in their plan.

Combined with the fact that more than 60 percent of Americans don't have enough cash to cover a $1,000 emergency expense, the passage of today's package is especially critical.

Specifically, H.R. 88 will make it easier for small employers to pool together and offer retirement plans to their employees. This would help bridge the divide between the benefits that large employers might offer to their employees and those that smaller employers only wish that they could offer.

Overall, this will help ensure that the next generation of Americans doesn't outlive its savings.

I have to tell you, one of the things that I remember so clearly as a child growing up is my mother and dad saying to me: The one thing we never want to be to you kids is a burden.

I thought to myself, my gosh, my mom and dad are worried about being a burden to my brothers and sisters, after all they have done for us?

What we are trying to do is make up for that. The Greatest Generation, they are telling us they don't want to be a burden to the next generation. How American is that? That has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. That has to do with who we are as Americans.

This H.R. 88 accomplishes a lot of those goals, but I have to tell you, a secure retirement for every American should not be a partisan issue, and we know it is not. So, today, let's come together as a unified body and send this bill to the Senate, for the sake of every American's peace of mind during this season of peace.

Before I conclude, I also want to highlight the railroad track maintenance tax credit for the short-line railroads and the extension of the biodiesel tax credit. Each of these actions will directly support economic growth and job creation in rural communities

across America.

As I look across to the other side, I think we are all the same. I can remember, as a child growing up, sitting down and making up a list and sending it off to the North Pole, telling Santa Claus everything I wanted. But I can remember coming down on Christmas morning, and I never got everything I wanted, but I was really thankful for everything I got.

Mr. Speaker, this is bipartisan. This is who we are. If we cannot secure the future for those who have done so much for us, what are we doing here?

This is a wonderful opportunity for us to act at a time of year when it is much more important to give than it is to receive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first speak, in general, in support of this tax package overall, which includes some very, very good tax policy. But I want to highlight and specifically draw attention to one very important provision, a bipartisan provision, and that is a further delay of the medical device tax for a 5-year period.

My preference, Mr. Speaker, would have been to have a permanent repeal of the device tax, but I understand you have to compromise on things, and that is a good compromise, so 5 years is what we get.

And look, during a period of time when there are very few issues that a lot of policymakers, unfortunately, in Congress can agree upon, there is no doubt that there has been strong, bipartisan, broad-based support to repeal and eliminate a very bad policy that was put in place as a part of ObamaCare and repealing this device tax.

This is about making sure that our Nation, our country, America, continues to lead the world in this important ecosystem that is central to improving patient care and also creating high-quality jobs.

We all know the medical device industry in America is truly an American success story. It is a Minnesota success story. I can speak to the 400,000 people around the country who are directly employed. I can speak to the 35,000 folks who are employed in Minnesota in this industry.

And these are hundreds and hundreds of companies, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the chance to visit and tour, companies you may have never heard of. They may have 5 employees or 10 employees, but every single one of them has that doctor, that engineer, that entrepreneur who is working to improve or help save lives for patients.

The device tax, however, unfortunately, caused the loss of about 29,000 jobs as it was put in place. Back this last July, Members will recall that the House voted, overwhelmingly--bipartisan support--to permanently repeal this device tax with historic levels of support, both Republicans and Democrats. Nearly 300 Members voted together to get rid of it.

It is really about protecting innovation, and it is about protecting small businesses. Eighty percent of medical device companies have less than 50 employees, and 93 percent of these companies have less than 500 employees who have good, high-paying jobs.

We are also a net exporter, exporting around the world in this industry. The Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, imposed a new 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices.

It doesn't sound like much, but keep in mind, this is not a tax on profits. It is a tax on your sales; it is a tax on your revenue; and that is where we saw the negative impact, because it already takes 8 to 10 years for these companies to become profitable in the first place. They deal with FDA regulation, and they deal with reimbursement issues. This raised the bar. This raised the hurdle. It made it much more difficult for these companies to become profitable in the first place.

It is about giving predictability and giving certainty for these companies so that they can continue to help innovate and help patients. That is what it is really about, making sure that new, life-improving and lifesaving products are coming to market.

I visited and met with engineers, technicians, owners, and entrepreneurs of these companies who work day in and day out coming up with the ideas for the innovation that really makes America the forefront leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage support for this bill. It is a good compromise, and it makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today did not go through committee like a bill this large should. We could have offered amendments to address some of the most pressing issues with this tax bill.

I would have started with how this bill cherry-picks winners and losers, with many of the losers being in States like the State I live in, the State of New Jersey.

This is, again, let me repeat, ``Weekend at Bernie's.'' They prop up the dead tax bill, make it look alive, and then they bring in something that makes it look even more dead.

That didn't work; this will not work. You didn't run on it; you will not run on this.

Our State got slammed by the new cap on the State and local tax deduction, better known as SALT, State and local taxes, the oldest deduction in the books. The GOP tax scam took money from homeowners and communities in my State and others to fund their massive giveaway to big corporations. The data is there. It is clear. It is succinct. It is definitive.

Republicans even bragged about using their tax scam to hurt New Jersey and the region. Imagine that. Imagine bragging about deliberately hurting millions of people. My amendment would have restored this critical deduction, but it was blocked.

This bill before us today provides targeted relief to victims of disasters, but only a select few. There have been 13 disasters since we last held a committee meeting on a tax bill, and I

don't see them listed here, not to mention the tax relief that victims of Hurricane Sandy never received in the first place.

There is a bill that would provide disaster tax relief to all federally declared disaster areas automatically, which it should be, so we don't have to play these partisan games of picking and choosing. If we want to help people, let's vote on it.

There are provisions in this bill that I would have supported, but our chairman made no such attempt to reach us. In fact, we didn't have any witnesses. In fact, we didn't have any hearings. How about that for democracy?

Instead, this is nearly $100 billion.

It is unpaid for; you are very good at that. It is undebated; you think you know all of the answers. And it is very, very partisan. So much for reaching out. And most important, it utterly ignores the needs of workers in this country.

Mr. Speaker, did you hear that General Motors just announced 14,700 workers are losing their jobs? Does this bill do anything to address that? No. In fact, the underlying tax bill they are trying to fix today--remember Bernie?--did nothing to help those workers either.

General Motors moves American jobs to China and Mexico. They will be paying a lower tax rate for the pleasure, from 21 percent to a minimum of just 10.5 percent. How do you justify that?

And we continue to let them deduct the cost--get this. We allow them to deduct the cost of moving their operations overseas.

How un-American do you get? We need to stop that.

There is a bill, by the way, to do that, if you noticed.

If you can believe it, General Motors saved more than $150 million so far this year thanks to the GOP tax scam, and they appear to have benefited by as much as $6.5 billion by the tax holiday for offshore cash hidden in this GOP bill.

The data is clear, Mr. Speaker. Read it. Yet here they are shipping jobs overseas just in time for the holidays.

You might think after they were repudiated at the ballot box that Republicans would show some humility and extend a hand to work with us, reach out. No. All they could do is smile and say: Bernie, it is your year. Don't worry about it.