Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, too often, our laws passed with the best of intentions fail to keep pace with technology, and that is what we are seeing today with the Communications Decency Act.

The bill was passed in 1996 as Congress' first attempt to regulate inappropriate material online. This law prevented hosts and visitors of a website from being treated as a publisher for legal purposes. It is what allowed classified websites like eBay to flourish while being legally protected from third-party content posted on their sites.

But 20 years is an eternity in the digital age, and bad actor websites have created platforms designed to facilitate illegalities like child prostitution and sex trafficking, and they use provisions in this law to shield them from any liability.

One of the most notorious examples is online advertiser Backpage.com. Since 2011, more than 20 civil action lawsuits have been brought against this site for willingly facilitating sex trafficking and the prostitution of minors. However, each time a legal action was brought against Backpage, Federal law shielded them from liability.

Last year, The Washington Post reported that a contractor for this site was soliciting and creating sex-related ads, despite Backpage's repeated insistence that they had no role in the content of their ads. Backpage used longstanding Federal protections under the Communications Decency Act to shield itself from all liability.

In the Doe v. Backpage ruling by the first circuit, the judges held that, even if Backpage had facilitated the crime of sex trafficking, this law shielded the company from the claims that were filed by the child victims. The first circuit recently reiterated that when it threw out yet another lawsuit against Backpage. The courts weren't able to help these victims, instead, encouraging them to pursue legislative changes, and that brings us here today.

H.R. 1865 finally creates a legislative solution to hold these bad actors accountable and allow the victims to seek the damages that they deserve. It creates a new offense in the Federal code for websites that facilitate this criminal activity and gives, to prosecutors, the tools they need to hold the wrongdoers accountable.

The bill is a product of a lot of great work, and I want to thank Congresswoman Wagner for introducing it. The Rules Committee, last night, made in order an amendment from Congresswoman Walters that substantially strengthens the legislation and has Congresswoman Wagner's full support. Its inclusion attached the text of bipartisan Senate language to drastically improve its implementation. This is language that has the support of both the tech industry and the victims advocacy groups.

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to see Members of both parties from both sides of the Capitol come together on this. Through collaboration, we have crafted a bill that does more than just update a 20-year-old law. It fulfills our moral responsibility to protect the children that we represent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump tweeted over the weekend: ``Dems are no longer talking DACA.''

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Democrats are still urging our colleagues yet again to act by helping us bring up the Dream Act for a vote on the House floor.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except on paper. President Trump set the official deadline for DACA to expire on March 5, so we can't afford to waste any more time, and Dreamers should not be forced to live in fear any longer.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, many of my colleagues today, as well as I, discussed the need to protect America's children. This bill is a great piece of that, and I am very grateful to have it on the floor today. But there is more that we can do. It must include acting to curb the Nation's gun violence epidemic.

Every day in America, 91 people are killed by a gun. Since Sandy Hook, there have been close to 1,000 mass shootings. A mass shooting is one where three or more people have lost their lives. Imagine that, thousands of them. Our Nation is still mourning the loss of 17 lives just last week when a gunman using an AR-15-style rifle opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. That gun is a weapon of war and should only be in the hands of the military and never on the streets of the United States.

Assault weapons were the weapon of choice not just in the Florida shooting but also in the mass shootings at the concert in Las Vegas; the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; and the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

They were prohibited under the assault weapons ban that Congress let expire in 2004. I was here when we established that ban, and we saw a great decrease in gun deaths from that. So they should be prohibited today and not in the hands of people who simply want to kill the most people they can in the shortest time.

Why would we allow an insanity like that?

So I was pleased to cosponsor legislation this week to re-implement the assault weapons ban.

The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are inspiring the entire Nation to push Congress to do our job and to act on gun violence.

I will tell you that I understand the pain that everybody feels from all of this, but we can't maintain it. We go from one to the other, as though nothing had ever happened before.

But we have to also do what the NRA has forbidden us from doing, which is to have gun research at the Communicable Disease Center. That certainly should be lifted, as well.

We certainly should expand and strengthen the background check system. Keeping people on the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list from being able to purchase firearms and explosives seems to me to be a no-brainer, but we won't even do that. And, yes, reinstating that weapons ban again, I think, is critically important.

Perhaps the voices of those injured and grieving children can break the gun lobby's stranglehold on Congress. I hope so. The majority should heed their call because we, as Members of Congress, are in a unique position. Unlike the clergy or grief counselors or elected officials, we can actually do something to combat this violence. It certainly is, Mr. Speaker, past time that we do.

Mr. Speaker, 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 thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We saw a shutdown just over 2 weeks ago, and here we are again; I believe this is the fifth one since September. And since the Republicans control every branch of the government, we have to wonder what is going on here.

I stood in this same spot after midnight in 2013 and announced that the great government of the United States was closed for business. At that point, they were closed for business for 16 days, which means all the Federal buildings and parks were closed. The vendors who had little mom-and-pop stores, newspaper kiosks, and things at Federal businesses lost all the money, a lot of it, people with lunchrooms. The estimate was $24 billion was lost to the Federal Government.

As I recall that particular one, that was because Senator Cruz, a Republican from Texas, didn't like the Affordable Care Act and apparently was not in favor of giving healthcare to the American people.

The first shutdown that occurred when I first came here was during the Clinton administration, when Speaker Gingrich shut down the government of the United States because he was unhappy with the plane seat in Air Force One that had been assigned to him.

And 2 weeks ago, it was blamed on the Democrats, which is very strange, since the Democrats do not have the vote to shut down the House. Only the majority has those votes. And this is the first shutdown in history, as far as we can find, that the group of persons who control the House, the Senate, and the White House have given themselves a shutdown. It is a pretty sad day for us.

So here we are, 3:30 a.m., 3\1/2\ hours after a government shutdown once again. We have really got to stop this. I tell you, our fellow Americans are in a state of nervous anxiety. The stock market dropped 1,000 points in a single day, twice this week. We have perplexed the entire United States of America as well as large parts of the world.

And I would think that a reasonable person, looking at all this, would be understood to believe that perhaps Republicans are incapable of running the government because it is purely, purely government by nothing but crisis.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation must pass before the time runs out on hundreds of thousands of young people who were promised, by a previous administration, that if they registered and paid $500, they could stay in the only country they know.

Without any warning, the new President invalidated the program and their lives. The things that they were promised were taken away, and those young people, a part of our lives, are living in fear. I really hope that we can do something about that. It is past time.

But I think what happened to them was most un-American.

So 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's acknowledge that a deal like this could have come much sooner if the majority tried bipartisanship from the very beginning. Instead, our Nation has had to go through four short-term funding fights and two government shutdowns to arrive at where we are this morning. All of that was entirely preventible. It was brought on by the majority's inability to get its work done.

It was little more than a week ago that President Trump stood in this Chamber and gave his State of the Union Address. In it, he proclaimed: ``I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people.''

That was Tuesday. But the following Tuesday, the President said that he would love to see a shutdown. He keeps injecting incredible confusion and uncertainty as to what he actually would be willing to sign into law. I am aware that my colleague, Mr. Sessions, did assure us that he wants to sign this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an awful long night, and it didn't need to be. We don't need to take up every crisis to the very brink. Since you control every lever of power in this government, you have failed the most basic responsibility: to run this government in a sensible and intelligent way. Everybody--all of us--know, whether we want to admit it or not, that this is no way to run a government and certainly not a government as important as the one we were sent here to represent.

I also urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so the House can take up the Dream Act because time is so quickly running out on those young people. It would be a blot on our conscience for the rest of our lives if we did nothing to help.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I can't support this continuing resolution today.

The great government of the United States of America that has been called ``the last best hope of man'' cannot be funded in tranches of maybe 2 weeks to 3 weeks. This is the fifth continuing resolution that we have done since the 30th of September. That is an atrocity. I mean, I can't think of any legislative body anywhere totally unable to do its job. And as sorry as I am to say it because of my great respect and affection for my fellow Members, I don't believe that this majority is capable of governing.

We are 2 days before the shutdown of the government of the United States, before it closes for business. Late last night, about 10 p.m., they finally released the details of this short-term spending bill. And we will be back here as soon as this one expires doing yet another one.

We are 5 months into the fiscal year, and this is the majority's fifth continuing resolution. We are virtually in the same position today as we were on September 8, December 7, December 21, and January 18 when this Chamber passed the prior continuing resolutions.

The majority isn't learning from any of this. They just keep repeating those mistakes. Like the bill before it, the proposal was written by and for the majority.

Let me repeat. The Democrats had virtually no say in this.

And once again, it ignores many of the priorities that we all agree need to be addressed: providing additional disaster relief after a storm season that saw historic wildfires, hurricanes, and mudslides; three rail wrecks in 2 weeks with fatalities, certainly proving to us, if we didn't know it already, that our neglect of the railroads, the bridges, the infrastructure in the United States is a mess. Saving America's endangered pensions is also a priority, and extending additional health access for our veterans certainly is not just a priority, but an obligation.

What is included here is woefully inadequate. This bill pays for extending community health centers--which is very important to me, let me hasten to add--by eviscerating funding for one of the most important parts of the Affordable Care Act that helps keep people well: the Prevention Fund. This fund focuses on children's health by expanding access to lifesaving vaccines and reducing the risk of lead poisoning, among many other things. The majority is paying for opening the centers by gutting the Prevention Fund while we are experiencing the worst flu epidemic in nearly a decade.

Now, I have heard a lot of talk about prioritizing the national defense. We don't take a back seat on our side to anybody who loves and respects the people who defend us, who every day--an all-volunteer military--stands on the line for us.

But we also believe that this bill does not raise the Budget Control Act sequester level of spending caps for nondefense. That is a shame, and it is also the Budget Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of the nondefense domestic budget that we are trying to get parity for goes to national security, part of our defense: to our veterans, to homeland security, the State Department, the Justice Department, and counterterrorism initiatives.

Refusing to equally raise the defense and nondefense caps is irresponsible. Secretary of Defense General Mattis has said: No enemy is more harmful than unpredictable funding from Congress.

But it isn't just defense that has had undependable funding. Not a single agency of the Federal Government knows from one week to another whether they will be funded or what they can do. We have cut down on almost everything that they can do, including travel to places that they absolutely need to be. It is pretty awful.

We have had the warnings, yet here we are today with a fifth short- term continuing resolution. The majority has 238 seats in the Chamber, but it only holds 51 seats in the Senate. They have the ability to draft a partisan agenda, and routinely do.

And we just saw that spectacle coming from the Intelligence Committee in the House, when a memo, governed by the majority--and one was acted on and put out for the public--but we are waiting and hoping that the one for the minority will be given the approval by the President of the United States.

But for anything, including this bill, to have a chance of getting 60 votes in the Senate and becoming law, you have to involve the Democrats. They don't have enough over there. Fifty-one is not 60. This is simple math.

The minority leader in the Senate has said this proposal is a nonstarter. He added that moving forward with this plan would ``jeopardize the positive discussions going on right now about the budget, immigration, disaster aid, and more.'' So we know, standing here today, that we are wasting our time.

We should finally bring an end to the continuing resolutions and the failed my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing. That is the only way the majority can fulfill what Speaker Ryan pledged when he took the gavel and said: ``Only a fully functioning House can truly represent the people. And If there were ever a time for us to step up, this would be that time.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people and the world have watched for months as the greatest democracy ever devised has been defined by its dysfunction. If ever there was one, this is the time for the majority to step up.

I am very much concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we are reaching the tipping point. That the dysfunction and chaos displayed not just with the actions of the stock market in the past 3 days, but our inability to really know whether or not we are going to keep the lights on has cost us dearly with respect to the rest of the world. And I need to point out as well, just a few minutes ago, the President of the United States thought that a government shutdown would be a good idea.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump said to reporters earlier today that if Congress can't reach a deal on immigration: ``I'd love to see a shutdown if we can't get this stuff taken care of. If we have to shut it down because the Democrats don't want safety . . . let's shut it down.''

We are also the people who were accused last week at the State of the Union--because we didn't show great enthusiasm for his speech--that we were treasonous. It is really pretty frightening to me, Mr. Speaker, what is going on here, and I can't avoid talking about it. I said earlier in the Rules Committee that I think we are reaching a tipping point, and I honestly do believe that.

But this isn't the first time that President Trump encouraged a government shutdown, which would be devastating. The last one we had was for 16 days and took $24 billion out of this economy. This is remarkable and, I think, pretty sad.

The President keeps injecting uncertainty into what already is a chaotic process from the majority. No one in this Chamber is against safety. We are asking them to take action on the bipartisan priorities that have languished while they passed tax cuts for millionaires.

In 2016, during an interview with CBS This Morning, President Trump said: ``I'm the king of debt. I'm great with debt. Nobody knows the debt better than me.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, according to this article from The Washington Post from February 3: ``The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year. . . . It's the highest amount of borrowing in 6 years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the Federal Government borrowed last year.''

He is definitely the king of debt.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article from The Washington Post titled: ``The U.S. Government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year.''

[From the Washington Post, February 3, 2018.]

The U.S. Government Is Set To Borrow Nearly $1 Trillion This Year, an

84 Percent Jump From Last Year

(By Heather Long)

It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if

you missed a small but important announcement from the

Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to

borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year--Trump's first

full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal

2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to

borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to documents

released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in

six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal

government borrowed last year.

Treasury mainly attributed, the increase to the ``fiscal

outlook.'' The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In

a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be

lower because of the new tax law.

The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the

heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money

on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other

domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly,

even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

``We're addicted to debt,'' says Marc Goldwein, senior

policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal

Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time

borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-

recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie

Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is

now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan,

borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military,

something Trump is advocating again.

Trump didn't mention the debt--or the ongoing budget

deficits--in his State of the Union address. The absence of

any mention of the national debt was frustrating for Goldwein

and others who warn that America has a major economic problem

looming.

``It is terrible. Those deficits and the debt that keeps

rising is a serious problem, not only in the long run, but

right now,'' Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a former

Reagan adviser, told Bloomberg News.

The White House got a taste this week of just how

problematic this debt situation could get. Investors are

concerned about all the additional borrowing and the

likelihood of higher inflation, which is why the interest

rates on U.S. government bonds hit the highest level since

2014. That, in turn, partly drove the worst weekly sell-off

in the stock market in two years.

The belief in Washington and on Wall Street has long been

that the U.S. government could just keep issuing debt because

people around the world are eager to buy up this safe-haven

asset. But there may be a limit to how much the market wants,

especially if inflation starts rising and investors prefer to

ditch bonds for higher-returning stocks.

``Some of my Wall Street clients are starting to talk

recession in 2019 because of these issues. Fiscal policy is

just out of control,'' says Peter Davis, a former tax

economist in Congress who now runs Davis Capital Investment

Ideas.

The Federal Reserve was also buying a lot of U.S. Treasury

debt since the crisis, helping to beef up demand. But the Fed

recently decided to stop doing that now that the economy has

improved. It's another wrinkle as Treasury has to look for

new buyers.

Tedeschi, the former Treasury adviser to the Obama

administration, calls it ``concerning, but not a crisis.''

Still, he says it's a ``big risk'' to plan on borrowing so

much in the coming years.

Trump's Treasury forecasts borrowing more than $1 trillion

in 2019 and more than $1.1 trillion in 2020. Before taking

office, Trump described himself as the ``king of debt,''

although he campaigned on reducing the national debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the

U.S. deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2019 and stay there for

a while. The latest borrowing figure--$955 billion--released

this week was determined from a survey of bond market

participants, who tend to be even faster to react to the

changing policy landscape and change their forecasts.

Both parties claim they want to be ``fiscally

responsible,'' but Goldwein says they both pass legislation

that adds to the debt.

Politicians argue this is the last time they'll pass a bill

that makes the deficit worse, but so far, they just keep

going.

The latest example of largesse is the GOP tax bill. It's

expected to add $1 trillion or more to the debt, according to

nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation

(and yes, that's after accounting for some increased economic

growth).

But even before that, Goldwein points to the 2015 extension

of many tax cuts and the 2014 delays in Medicare

reimbursement cuts.

``Every time you feed your addiction, you grow your

addiction,'' says Goldwein.

There doesn't seem to be any appetite for budgetary

restraint in Washington, but the market may force Congress's

hand.

Mr. Speaker, we did hear in the State of the Union that we will be asking for $1.5 trillion for infrastructure. Given the $1.5 trillion that we have already started borrowing for to give the top 1 percent a great tax cut that would be permanent, I am not sure anybody will finance that request. And, frankly, taking on that amount of debt would mean that almost everything else that we do in the country would take a back seat, or even further behind than back.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I would not come to the floor if I were in the majority and lecture the minority when the majority runs the House, the Senate, and the White House and accuse us of shutting down the House or not producing the votes. We don't have enough votes in the first place. That is why we are the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the majority speak with great urgency today about the need to pass the continuing resolution. But where was this urgency from the majority for the last 5 months of this fiscal year?

They were so consumed with providing tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations that they ignored virtually everything else.

This was a bill that was sold as a middle class tax cut. But 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent; and for corporations, the tax breaks are permanent. For individuals, they are sunsetted.

Speaker Ryan, over the weekend, promoted the fact that a secretary in Pennsylvania received an extra $1.50 a week under the tax scam. That is $78 a year for her. You can see what the middle class actually got.

But compare that with the wealthy. One analysis found that the Koch brothers and their corporate empire could save between $1 billion and $1.4 billion combined in income taxes every year as a result of the tax law. It is important to remember that this is a permanent cut.

It was a bill written for the rich to help the rich. It spends money we don't have, while adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit. That is such a staggering amount that the Congressional Budget Office said last week that because of this tax bill, our government now is expected to run out of money sooner than anticipated.

The deadline to raise the debt ceiling has now been moved from early April to mid-March. Only during the Second World War was our debt as a percentage of gross domestic product higher than it is today. I hope we can forever end the myth that the majority is the party of fiscal discipline. The situation we are in today is a direct result of the majority prioritizing the wealthy over doing the most basic functions of keeping the government running.

And now, after ignoring Democrats as this bill was drafted, they expect us to fall in line and support a flawed proposal. That is not how it works. If they want our support, they need to work with us. And Democrats have been clear: We cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road. It is past time for a long-term bill that addresses urgent national priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in calling attention to an attack on one of our most basic fundamental rights as American citizens--the right to organize in our workplace.

The impending Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, is nothing more than a continued attack by corporate CEOs on American workers' right to unite and advocate for fair labor standards. This critical right offers working people the opportunity to get ahead through bargaining with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Wherever you work, if you appreciate a 40 hour work week, sick leave and vacation days, guaranteed safe working conditions, then you have unions to thank. And the outcome of this Supreme Court case will impact you. It was not a benevolent employer who brought fair labor standards to the American workforce; it was American workers. And an attack on the ability to organize in the workplace is an attack on all of them.

Since the inception of labor unions, American workers--both unionized and non-unionized--have enjoyed substantial gains in wages, safety, and stability. In fact, throughout the 20th Century, the growth of unions gave rise to the creation of the great American middle-class, who has contributed immensely to our great nation. Over the years, however, a change in global economy, unfair trade agreements, and a deliberate effort to weaken unions have made life much harder for the middle class. In fact, for far too many middle-class families, the American dream has sadly now become nothing more than a memory of time passed.

This decimation of the middle class coincides with the Majority's relentless attacks on labor unions. The Majority has pushed right-to- work legislation, tried to weaken enforcement of workers' collective rights, and has even tried to repeal prevailing wage laws. They are working hand-in-glove with the Trump administration, which supports a national right-to-work bill. We are seeing many dangerous attacks on the state level, too.

I continue to fight against these attacks on our workers. All the while, I will also keep fighting to overhaul NAFTA, which has caused my district to lose half of its manufacturing jobs. In holding our trading partners to a higher standard, it is critical that we practice what we preach. That means promoting strong labor standards here at home and protecting American workers against unyielding efforts to weaken their right to organize.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 1-year anniversary of a complete Republican control of Washington. The majority runs the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. And what do we have to show for it?

First, a tax bill for corporations and the wealthy. Now, the great Government of the United States is closed for business.

The impacts will be severe. Just look what happened during the last Republican shutdown in 2013, which cost our economy an estimated $24 billion:

We lost progress on reducing the massive backlog of veterans' disability claims;

Two-thirds of the Centers for Disease Control and three-fourths of the National Institutes of Health were furloughed;

Flu season surveillance and monitoring was severely limited, and we are in a crisis, this year, with the flu where more than 20 children have died;

Lifesaving FDA food safety inspections were delayed;

1.2 million private sector loans to individuals and small businesses were disrupted;

Billions in tax refunds were delayed;

Head Start centers serving 6,300 children were closed; and

120,000 private sector jobs were destroyed.

Why is the government shut down today?

Because the majority was so obsessed with handing out tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations that they ignored their responsibility to the American people. They failed to renew, before they expired, community health centers.

They failed to permanently renew the Children's Health Insurance Program, which the CBO--Congressional Budget Office--had found would save the government over $6 billion over 10 years.

That is despite the fact that the majority made their tax cuts for corporations permanent.

That was a tax bill, by the way, that was sold as a middle class tax cut. But we know today that it was anything but. It is a tax cut for big corporations and the superwealthy, and it seems designed to target blue States. I live in one.

Action on these items shouldn't be some extraordinary exercise. Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to address them. But the majority has been missing in action.

All the while, we have been forced to limp along, funding the government in month-long tranches. That is no way to run a business, and it is certainly no way to run the Government of the United States of America.

President Trump tweeted last May: ``Our country needs a good `shutdown.'''

In 2011, years before he assumed office, President Trump said, during an interview, as another Republican shutdown loomed: ``If there is a shutdown, I think it would be a tremendously negative mark on the President of the United States. He's the one that has to get people together.'' We would like to have him do that and play that role now.

The President should not treat this like a reality show, and the majority should stop treating government like a game where the truth is so easily discarded.

The majority's short-term CR failed last night in the other body because it didn't get the job done. It was written behind closed doors without a single bit of input from the minority party.

Democrats weren't alone in making clear that this continuing resolution was unacceptable.

Members of the majority's own conference voted against it on both sides of the Capitol.

If I were in the majority's shoes with 51 seats in the other body, and I had to get to 60 votes, I would want Democrats to be in on it with me. To do that, we need to be in on it at all steps, not just at the time of the vote.

The majority is quick to invoke the name of my State Senator--that I think will not cross my lips because of what we just went through--but let me say that that Senator from the State of New York earned perfect scores on his SATs, was heard one Saturday morning on NPR on two different subjects, and I don't believe anyone could honestly say that he ever misunderstood what the President said during a meeting, or that he would leave a meeting in any way confounded or confused.

They were apparently close to a deal to avert a shutdown.

The problem is that this President apparently thinks one thing at 10 a.m. and another one at noon--somewhat like Alice in Wonderland--and that makes reaching an agreement extraordinarily difficult.

Even the Senate majority leader from my other home State of Kentucky, Senator Mitch McConnell, said this week: ``I'm looking for something that President Trump supports. And he's not yet indicated what measure he's willing to sign.''

So the majority in both Chambers should try something new for a change: we call it bipartisanship.

I am here today ready to craft a compromise that addresses the needs facing the American people. So are my Democratic colleagues.

To the majority, I say this with all of my heart: Work with us for the good of this country, and let us end this shutdown before Monday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sorry that the majority leader didn't mention it, but were there any Democrats in those meetings in his office?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4871, the Pay Our Military Act, to guarantee pay and death benefits for our military.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader and our great friend and a woman we are very happy about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth Republican government shutdown in the last 30 years. It is the first shutdown in modern history when one party held the House, the Senate, and the White House.

During the 2013 government shutdown, the economy lost $1.5 billion a day. I am sure it is even more now.

We need to work across the aisle, and the majority needs to work with us, and let's solve this problem.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are back to the House floor today to pass another bill, the real intent of which is to harm women and limit their constitutionally protected healthcare they can receive. I need to repeat that because most people I find do not understand that the Constitution of the United States, which we revere, protects a woman's right to choose.

To add insult to injury, this intrusive legislation is totally unnecessary. Killing an infant, or anybody else, has always been against the law.

To reiterate the point, a bipartisan law was passed in 2002 to reinforce that medical care should be given to any infant born alive. To illustrate how unnecessary this bill is, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is the only example we have in America, is going to spend the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of parole for three first-degree murder convictions.

But H.R. 4712 goes much further than the current law. It legislates medical standards of care and threatens the providers with civil and criminal penalties.

The effects of this are best described by an OB/GYN from my district:

``I have been a practicing OB/GYN for more than 35 years, and it is my life's calling to care for women across their lifespan. Throughout my career, I have cared for patients during their highest highs and lowest lows, from healthy pregnancies to devastating fetal anomalies, to cancer diagnoses. I take my role as their trusted physician very seriously, and take pride in providing compassionate and ethical care to each and every patient.

``H.R. 4712 would take that ability away from me, inserting politicians into the patient-physician relationship and the profoundly personal healthcare decisions of my patients.

``Recently, I had a patient with severe HELLP syndrome, a life- threatening blood pressure condition during pregnancy for which the only treatment is to deliver. This meant induction of her previable fetus to save her life.

``As her condition deteriorated, and after consulting her family, spiritual leader, and several specialists, she decided to deliver''-- she should be able to consult whomever she pleases--``knowing that her extremely preterm infant would not survive. If enacted, H.R. 4712 would take away this family's choice of providing comfort care for their baby, put my patient's life at risk, and threaten me with criminal and civil penalties for providing appropriate and empathetic care to my patients.''

H.R. 4712 is just the next bill in a long line of votes that we have had here that would hurt women.

But Congress is just part of the current crusade against women. This administration has done more than its share to ensure that 2017 saw an unprecedented amount of attacks against women and our ability to access healthcare.

Just this morning--America, please don't lose the irony in this. Just this morning, the administration announced a rule to allow providers, hospitals, nurses, and others to refuse patients needed healthcare based solely on the religious or moral beliefs of the provider.

Is it just me who thinks that is in direct contradiction to this bill they are trying to push off on us now? On the one hand, they are saying everything has to be treated, and, on the other hand, they are saying you don't have to treat anybody if your personal or moral convictions prevent you from doing so. That is really dangerous, believe me. This is an unconscionable effort to blatantly ignore the needs and the best interests of the patients.

This silly rule will put individuals' lives and health in danger and will result in deaths, based on an undefined moral objection. It doesn't even have to be explained that they have some idea that they would not be able to treat that person who may be bleeding to death before them.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close again with the words from the OB/GYN from my district:

``The purpose of this legislation is to scare and intimidate physicians and punish them for providing abortion care, but the true impact will be on the women and families who will be denied the highest quality medical treatment they deserve.

``H.R. 4712 is a dangerous bill. I urge you to protect my patients' access to care and reject this gross interference in the patient- physician relationship.''

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, the whole idea of this bill is a political issue. But the idea of what the administration did this morning, to completely negate this bill that we are debating right now, is irony that is just too delicious to miss.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber finds itself in much the same position it was in on September 8, December 7, and December 21. Those were the other three continuing resolutions that we passed to try to get through here, but we are rushing again with one of the majority's short-term continuing resolutions with days to spare--actually, tomorrow--one day to spare until the great Government of the United States closes for business.

Now, you might think that would be the most important thing on the minds of the majority and of the United States Government, but it isn't because we are not going to get to vote on this tonight until 7 p.m.-- and all the people in the country who are holding their breath to see whether they are going to be laid off, the Federal workers, and all the other things that go with that devastating thing.

Let me remind you that the last time the government had a shutdown, $24 billion was lost to the economy, a lot of it to laid-off workers, and also the fact that large numbers of facilities owned by the government have stores and newspaper stands in them that were also closed.

But, no, we are not in any hurry today. Nobody is concerned about it, and the President of the United States and several Members of the House have gone to a political rally in Pennsylvania. They are trying to save a congressional seat there of a person who was forced to step down. That, obviously, is of more importance to them than whether or not this government continues to function.

That is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have been putting up with for a long time.

I don't recall a time we have had four continuing resolutions in probably a month and a half, but here we are, and I bet you that we will come back in February and do yet another one.

Now, my colleagues who have gone to Pennsylvania could have gone next week--because we are taking another week off back to the district next week--and not caused this great hubbub today, which is one of the most important days in the life of the Nation as to whether we are going to continue to be the Government of the United States.

It is tragic, isn't it?

I remember I was on the floor the last time it shut down, and at midnight I had said: The government of the United States is now closed. I would

hate to be up here to have to say something like that again.

I don't know what else to call it except incompetence. That certainly comes as close to the definition as I can make.

But this latest proposal that we will not vote on until after 7 p.m.--and I understand that will inconvenience some people, but I do hope that other people will be able to stand the suspense. This is the fourth continuing resolution since the end of the fiscal year in September, and it will run, as I said before, through February 16, where I bet you we do another one.

If past is prologue, we probably will find ourselves back because what we do in this House now is be a standby person while the majority goes from one self-imposed crisis to the next. And much like the proposals before it, this continuing resolution is not the product of bipartisan negotiations. It was written solely by the majority without a single Democratic fingerprint anywhere on the bill.

America, pay heed to that. If this government should shut down, this problem is solely that of the Republican Party. We were not asked for our input when it was written in the back room, but since its public release hours ago, the majority has being asking for our support and saying what a shame it is, what a shame that we who don't even believe in this particular thing are not out there beating the drum for it.

But that is not how it works. The majority cannot craft this bill solely by itself and fail to address the matters that we agree we need to take action on and then criticize us for not supporting this partisan proposal.

We had an idea we would come to this point for some time, and I think everybody will agree with me, certainly on my side, and I suspect on both, that our leader, the minority leader, Nancy Peolsi, certainly made herself clear all the way through as to what it would take to get the votes of the Democrats in the House. But there was no consideration given to that, and yet they are asking us for votes.

This stopgap measure continues to just chip away at the Affordable Care Act--and I know my colleague said he was happy about that--by targeting some key funding mechanisms under the law. I suppose I probably did the rule on at least the vast majority of all the times repeal and replace was the fashion here, and I have always asked every single time: Why does the Republican Party want to take healthcare away from people? I have never gotten an answer to that, but I am totally convinced, after all this time, that that is exactly what they want to do.

Since the majority waived the rules requiring the provisions to be paid for for the healthcare act, it is actually a massive tax cut for the health insurance industry. It comes on the heels of the majority's tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, which represents the largest transfer of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen. It is a bill that made tax cuts for corporations permanent.

Now, the continuing resolution before us today includes a temporary reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare for 9 million of America's children. That was only to be for 6 years. But, as you heard already from a previous speaker this morning, had it been made permanent, it would save over $6 billion. I fail to understand the economic benefits of what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, why is the majority giving permanent tax cuts to corporations but it won't even give permanency to children in need of healthcare? The majority believes that a temporary reprieve on CHIP will force us to vote for this misguided plan. But what about the community health centers? What about improving healthcare for veterans?

The continuing resolution turns a blind eye to victims in desperate need of help in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes, mudslides, and wildfires our Nation has ever experienced and to 700,000 DREAMers who remain at risk of being deported following President Trump's decision to end DACA.

Remember what DACA was about. We asked young people who had been brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to come out and to register and say that they were undocumented and that we would protect them as a way to citizenship. But instead, that was taken away from them, and they face deportation and are being deported daily--and it is an emergency.

But it also fails to take any action, this particular CR does, on bipartisan priorities like the pension crisis, veterans healthcare, and, as I said, the community health centers.

What has the majority prioritized instead of crafting a long-term spending bill that deals with these urgent issues? Ideological crusades like undermining financial reform laws and attacking women's health.

We had a wonderful debate just before this bill came on the floor of a thing called Born-Alive. We passed a bill I think unanimously, and I think it was done by voice vote, in 2002, that any infant born in an abortion setting would be given every care in the world, and, in fact, we didn't even need that bill. That is a given.

At the same time, though, that we are debating that on the floor today, that is to do every medical thing possible, the administration announced that, if a provider--a nurse, a doctor, or anybody in a medical setting, and they don't have to give any reason for this--if they personally or for some other reason, morality reason, decide they do not want to treat a patient before them, they don't have to.

Think about that a minute. Well, you know what I am trying to say here. It is more than ironic. It is stupid. But we sort of get used to that.

A separate bill on the floor today, H.R. 2954, would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a thing hated by this Congress, their ability to respond to the problematic trends in the mortgage market. So here we go again. The CFPB has already saved over $12 billion for consumers.

Another measure that will be considered this week, H.R. 4712--that was the one I mentioned a minute ago--tries to shame and scare doctors out of providing constitutionally protected abortion services. The bill this morning gives doctors and medical professionals up to 5 years in prison just for practicing medicine to the best of their ability.

And all the while, the majority has been ignoring the elephant in the room and we march toward another government shutdown, and the American people and the world are once again forced to wonder whether the greatest superpower on this planet can keep the lights on. Surely, this is no way to run the Government of the United States.

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

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

For months, the majority has been holding the healthcare of 9 million children and more than 9 million individuals, including seniors, pregnant women, and veterans, hostage while they pass the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Well, the time is up, and with each day we fail to act, our constituents face uncertain futures. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, even President Trump agrees we need to act on CHIP. Just this morning, he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''

Well, here is our chance to stop playing politics, except we can't do it until 7 o'clock this evening because the President and so many Members of the House are in Pennsylvania at a political rally. I guess this wasn't as important as we thought it was.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and Kids Act. This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our most vulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare priorities.

It permanently reauthorizes CHIP, saving us $6 billion. It reauthorizes the community health centers for 2 years and includes other vital healthcare programs that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and so many more.

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.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant minority leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he is prepared to close? I have no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Cole, seems almost to be desperate to have us vote for this continuing resolution, which says to me that the majority doesn't have enough votes to pass it. Somehow by saying that because the Democrats will not support this farce, then we are going to be responsible for it. But, frankly, my good friends are three for three on government shutdowns just since I have been a Member of Congress. Nobody is going to believe that, with all the excess numbers of votes here--I think you have 23 more Members have than we have got-- we are at fault.

But, anyway, let's get to the business here.

Instead of treating this like the serious issue that it is, the President is treating it like another reality show. He has suggested that Democrats would certainly be blamed for the majority's inability to keep the government running. But he is wrong about that, too. Just this week, a poll from Hart Research Associates found that the public would blame the majority by a double-digit margin. That gap grows wider when you look specifically at independent Americans.

History shows this to be true. When the majority shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act in 2013, a majority of the public placed the blame on them, not President Obama. We saw similar results when former Speaker Gingrich engineered shutdowns in both 1995 and 1996 because he thought the seat given to him on Air Force One did not fit his stature. The American people then blamed the Republican congressional majority, not President Bill Clinton. That is because facts matter, and the fact here is that the majority chose a partisan approach that threatens our ability to keep the government functioning.

But this discussion should not be centered on blame. It is about whether the Republican majority can even govern. Holding the White House, the Senate, and the House comes with great responsibilities, and, obviously, the most basic one--and we all understand this--to start with is keeping the Government of the United States running.

Yet we are confronted all the time with this problem: Are we going to be able to pay the bills and keep things going?

That is so humiliating for America. There is no other word for it.

But this majority, as pointed out before, just lurches from crisis to crisis to crisis, and they lurch around from one deadline to the next without any plan. All the time, all you need to do is ask to let us work together, let Democrats in on your backroom plans. We never get to see that. We are never consulted and never a part of any plan.

Let me remind everyone watching that the last Republican shutdown in 2013 cost the economy an estimated $24 billion. Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were halted, and numbers of great Federal employees were furloughed. Federal permitting was stopped. Hundreds of patients at the National Institutes of Health were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials. Federal scientific research was also put on hold. We had five Nobel Prize-winning scientists working for the Federal Government at that time, and four of them were furloughed.

The majority apparently thinks it has the votes to go it alone on this bill, but I don't think so anymore. We thought so when I wrote this. But they think we are going to prevent a repeat of all that carnage. It is a shame that they squandered a chance to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill. Frankly, I think it is tragedy, and I think it is no way to run the government.

Without question, we could have kept the government running while addressing the priorities that Members of both parties agree on, like we used to.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were here. Does it not?

Mr. Speaker, we are 5 days away from Christmas, but it feels like Groundhog Day. Less than 24 hours ago, the majority stood in the Chamber and passed its partisan bill to provide tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and one President.

Speaker Ryan called it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but, apparently, by a twist of fate, he is getting that great opportunity again today, much sooner, I am sure, than he anticipated, because we are taking the bill up again this morning.

Maybe in the mad dash to provide massive tax breaks for corporations and the 1 percent, the majority failed to do the due diligence and properly vet the bill.

We found out, after it passed, that several of its provisions violated the Byrd rule in the Senate. Now, everybody knows about the Byrd rule in the Senate, and I don't understand why this was not found in the conference that was held for maybe 30 minutes.

This is the rule that prohibits the Senate from considering extraneous matters as part of a reconciliation bill.

After passing the House, provisions in this bill governing 529 college savings accounts and exempting certain universities from an excise tax were ruled out of order by the Senate Parliamentarian. The bill was so rushed that even the title of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, was found to be a violation. Let me repeat that. The very first words of the bill didn't pass muster with a nonpartisan rule keeper in the Senate. Imagine what other areas we have yet to discover.

This is a consequence of a process that was nothing short of an abomination. There were zero hearings on the text of this bill. Not a single expert was called in to give his or her experience. It got the votes to pass only after a series of closed-door, backroom dealings, and a conference committee between the House and Senate Republicans. Well, I think there were some Democrats there, but they tell me that none of them signed the conference report. The Senate was such a sham that an agreement was reached before the first public meeting ever took place.

Now, I know this is not the last time, Mr. Speaker, we will meet here to try to fix this bill. Mark my words, we will be back here next year to make more so-called technical fixes because of this hasty consideration.

The majority is rushing to pass a bill that is historically unpopular, clearly deeply flawed, and we will be forced to clean up its impacts and unintended consequences for many years to come.

I think we have all got a second opportunity here, and I would wish that my friends, to whom I only wish well, would grab up all their papers and run for the door and forget about this tax bill altogether. But I know that that wish will not come true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Georgia that it wasn't Democrats who found that. The Parliamentarian in the Senate found those errors, and they had to be corrected. Let's put history in the right perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Trump White House released a National Security Strategy Report on Monday, and it pointed out: ``The national debt, now over $20 trillion, presents a grave threat to America's long-term prosperity and, by extension, our national security.''

So what do we do about that? We are going to add $1.5 trillion more.

The overwhelming majority of expert analyses show that, even with growth taken into account, this bill will cause the deficit to skyrocket. It isn't just a threat to our economic security. According to the White House, it is a grave threat to our national security as well.

The bill in front of us costs $1.5 trillion and includes permanent tax cuts for corporations, but temporary ones for individuals.

So who do you think is going to lose those first?

It is really very troubling, I think, too: the idea of looking ahead to what we are going to be dealt with. And we understand already that next year the cry will be: Oh, look at this debt. This is awful. We are going to have to cut spending.

Entitlements will be the place where the Republicans prefer to go.

So let's prepare all of our senior citizens on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course, that also hurts the ACA, that they are going to be on the line next year.

Future Congresses will be pressured to reject the budget gimmick and extend many of those tax cuts, meaning the true cost of the bill is much higher.

According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the expirations and delays hide potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the cost of the bill to $2.2 trillion.

I am sure that my Republican colleagues will argue that growth will prevent the deficit from skyrocketing. But the CRFB reports that even with dynamic scoring, the total cost of the bill without budgetary gimmicks would be over $1.6 trillion and up to $2 trillion with interest. And that takes growth into account. As a result, our debt could exceed the size of our economy by 2027.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's analysis, entitled ``Final Tax Bill Could End Up Costing $2.2 Trillion.'

[From the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Dec. 18, 2017]

Final Tax Bill Could End Tip Costing $2.2 Trillion

The final conference committee agreement of the Tax Cuts

and Jobs Act (TCJA) would cost $1.46 trillion under

conventional scoring and over $1 trillion on a dynamic basis

over ten years, leading debt to rise to between 95 percent

and 98 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027

(compared to 91 percent under current law). However, the bill

also includes a number of expirations and long-delayed tax

hikes meant to reduce the official cost of the bill. These

expirations and delays hide $570 billion to $725 billion of

potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the

cost of the bill to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion (before

interest) on a conventional basis or roughly $1.5 trillion to

$1.7 trillion on a dynamic basis over a decade. As a result,

debt would rise to between 98 percent and 100 percent of GDP

by 2027.

Ignoring the expirations in this bill is particularly

disingenuous given the claim that using a ``current policy

baseline'' reduces the bill's costs. The (flawed) idea is

that the bill should be compared to a current policy baseline

that counts expired and expiring provisions as if they are

continued permanently. (For more on this, see Current Policy

Gimmick Would Add Half-Trillion to Debt (http://www.crfb.org/ blogs/current-policy-gimmick-would-add-half-trillion-debt)).

Using such a construct does not make sense if cost of

continuing future expirations contained in the bill are not

included in the initial cost estimate. Policymakers are

effectively claiming $450 billion of current policy savings

while ignoring over $700 billion of current policy costs.

This latest estimate updates our tally of the gimmicks from

a previous version of the bill (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/ senate-tax-bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). The

changes made in conference include both tax increases and

decreases that mostly offset each other, with a net increase

in the ten-year cost of $9 billion (compared to the Senate

bill). With these changes, the bill now has a total cost of

$1.46 trillion, or roughly $1.77 trillion with interest.

While there is no new dynamic score of the bill, assuming it

continues to produce very roughly $400 billion of dynamic

feedback (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/official-dynamic-score- shows-senate-tax-bill-will-still-cost-over-1-trillion) would

reduce that cost to about $1.05 trillion, or roughly $1.30

trillion with interest.

However, this cost does not account for as much as $725

billion of potential gimmicks that the conferenced bill

contains.

In the earlier version passed by the Senate, we identified

$585 billion (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax-bill- could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion) of arbitrary sunsets and

sunrises of certain provisions. Most significantly, nearly

all of the individual income tax provisions would have

expired after 2025. Additionally, the expensing provisions

``bonus depreciation'' began to phase down starting in 2022,

and a number of new tax increases appeared in 2026. Some

provisions were set to expire even earlier, such as an

expanded deduction for medical expenses and provisions for

craft beer and paid leave--clearly setting the stage for

future extensions.

The conferenced bill adds to the Senate bill's gimmicks,

which we explain here (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax- bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). Most significantly,

it advances the start date of the bill's requirement for

research expenses to be amortized, which nearly doubles the

ten-year savings of the provision. Additionally, the bill

tightens its limits on the business interest deduction four

years in the future--a future tax hike that may not be

allowed to ever occur. Other changes are smaller and move in

both directions.

Adding these gimmicks to the cost of the bill would

increase the total cost to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion.

Though the dynamic effect of making the bill permanent is

unknown, we estimate a permanent bill would produce roughly

$450 billion of feedback, leading to a dynamic cost of

roughly $1.6 trillion to $1.7 trillion. With interest, these

costs would rise to $2.4 trillion to $2.5 trillion, or $1.9

trillion to $2 trillion with dynamic effects included, over a

decade.

Mr. Speaker, we have urgent spending needs. This bill could keep us from dealing with infrastructure, education, healthcare, medical research, and, of course, we have to pay the costs of our military.

Make no mistake, exploding the deficit to pay for this bill--this giveaway to the rich--will come at the expense of all of those priorities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that we are back here fixing the bill, though I am surprised it is so soon, because we have been saying all along that we have got a long way to go with this bill.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from being considered on the House floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction, or repeals the ACA's individual mandate.

We know that repealing the individual mandate will lead to 13 million fewer Americans with health insurance and will cost premiums to rise by 10 percent. Now, I know that not giving healthcare is not much of an issue for the majority of this Congress because they have been trying to do that for a long time.

The bill also caps the State and local tax deduction, hurting taxpayers in my home State of New York, in California, and in other States in the Northeast, all of whom are donor States. My own State sends $48 billion a year to Washington, money that we get back nothing for. But we are not going to be able to do that anymore without this deduction. What we are doing then is risking the stability of the revenues that fund the public schools, fire departments, and hospitals in those States.

Mr. Speaker, let's make things right and defeat the previous question.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority is clearly unable to responsibly run the House of Representatives, because here we are fixing the bill less than 24 hours after it was passed.

It is a perfect example of why we need to go back to regular order: actually holding hearings, have expert witnesses and testimony, and properly vet bills.

That is pretty elementary, but it surely is true. It is especially true for bills of this magnitude that will effect every single citizen in America.

All the while, the government is about to run out of money, and we haven't even been able to reach a budget deal. That is Friday that the government will close if we do not do that.

We still haven't funded the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides needed healthcare to more than 9 million children.

We haven't reauthorized the community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people.

We haven't renewed the Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their education.

All of those programs expired back on September 30.

But here we are, wasting valuable time trying to fix the disaster of a bill that the majority passed just hours ago. It is embarrassing and it is humiliating. If we don't do better, the public is going to make us pay the price.

I want to close by quoting an article that appeared this morning in The Washington Post, written by a great columnist, Dana Milbank. I wouldn't miss his writing for the world.

``Maybe he is right and all those blue-chip economists and the nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, and others are wrong. Maybe growth will dramatically exceed forecasts, millions will enter the labor force and find work, wages will soar, and the $1.5 trillion tax bill will pay for itself. But if all that doesn't happen, the Trump tax will be blamed.''

Mr. Speaker, I end the quote there, reminding you, as Senator Schumer did yesterday, that this could be an anchor around your ankles for the rest of your lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill. For heaven's sake, let us take this opportunity given us and not force this onto the American public.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think America is pretty apprehensive this morning, certainly those who know that two American Presidents and one Governor of Kansas have tried trickle-down fairly recently and found it did not work at all and, indeed, caused great economic harm. But we are walking into trickle-down once again.

I think there is a word that describes when you do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result--I won't use that word, but I suspect most of us know exactly what I am talking about-- particularly at this time when this economy was really booming, really doing well.

I appreciate that there were pockets where people were not getting jobs, and this was pointed out by Richard Neal frequently last evening. We have such a skills gap that jobs are going unfilled in America, and that is what we really should be working on today.

The fact is that corporations are awash with money. The stock market is booming, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. Why in

the world would we trifle with that to try a failed trickle-down policy again?

Now, emergency procedures were used to bring the bill up before us today. Now, what is this urgent attention that nobody could have any amendments or anything, that it was an emergency?

We are not reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, which a lot of people think is an emergency because it provides healthcare to more than 9 million children. We are not reauthorizing community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people; and, after killing Planned Parenthood--the money--that means a lot more people will need a community health center. We are not renewing the Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their education.

Those three programs expired on September 30, but we are not considering them today. Instead, despite a record of 86 months of job growth--every single month for 86 months we have grown jobs--and an unemployment rate that remains steady, the majority is prioritizing tax cuts--not tax cuts for the middle class.

Don't let anybody tell you that this is tax reform. It isn't. It is a moving around of rates, but very specifically geared toward helping the rich with nothing much for the middle class who work hard to make ends meet, but tax cuts for the wealthy. The middle class will see their money go directly to the rich.

That is what the bill was designed to do. You can tell by who wrote it. There is not a single Democratic fingerprint or breath anywhere to be found. Instead, it was crafted by the lobbyists who virtually run Washington under the majority's leadership. Some swamp clearing.

Consider this: there are 11,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. More than half of them--more than half of 11,000--reported working on the issues involving taxes during the first three quarters of this year. Each of the 20 organizations that hired the most lobbyists to work on tax issues have reported lobbying specifically on tax reform, covering the matters included in this bill.

Now, this is the quote of all time. One lobbyist admitted to The New York Times that few Members actually had any influence on the final product. He said, ``You are dealing with 14 people instead of 535 people,'' saying specifically, as much as possibly could be said, that the 535 people in the Congress representing the people of the United States didn't do a thing on this. They wrote it.

The New York Times has reported that the travel industry lobbyists directly emailed those writing the bill to kill an amendment on tourism because a competitor who favored it has been critical of President Trump.

Business lobbyists, after already securing a lower corporate tax rate in an early version of the bill, called the members of the majority and made it even more favorable to them. They secured the removal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, a provision designed for the very rich to get away with paying no taxes at all, and we know some people who have done that.

The majority has been very clear about whom the bill is written for. One of the members of the majority, Congressman Chris Collins, said: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.'''

But, Mr. Speaker, what about the average American? What about workers and members of the middle class who can't write big campaign checks or who don't have an army of lawyers to scour the Tax Code on their behalf? Those are the people who are going to be forced to pay the price for providing the wealthy with these tax cuts.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is certainly a man who prefers business and knows a thing or two about running a business. He recently wrote this:

``Corporations are sitting on a record amount of cash reserves: nearly $2.3 trillion. That figure has been climbing steadily since the recession ended in 2009, and it is now double what it was in 2001. The reason CEOs''--this is an important point. ``The reason CEOs aren't investing more of their liquid assets has little to do with the tax rate. CEOs aren't waiting on a tax cut to `jump-start the economy'--a phrase of politicians who have never run a company--or to hand out raises. It is pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to significantly higher wages and growth, as Republicans have promised.''

Now, that is not somebody who is an enemy of business, and he has called this bill a trillion-dollar blunder.

This is really a remarkable time in the United States, knowing that we are on the brink of passing a bill that will adversely impact virtually every American except the rich. The majority has the votes, and there is not much Democrats can do to stop it.

Let me say again, I am glad the Democrats are not involved in writing it, but it is an insult to the word ``reform'' to associate it with this bill.

The American people know they are not getting what they were promised by the majority. We know the President campaigned mightily on doing away with carried interest, but it is still in the bill.

The bill hurts the middle class, children, veterans, and the elderly by limiting or outright eliminating many of the deductions that they rely on.

Under this bill, the personal exemption is eliminated, the mortgage interest deduction is limited, the State and local tax deduction is limited mightily, and the moving expense deduction for individuals has been eliminated. Even the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is eliminated. That will cause premiums to go up by 10 percent for those in the individual market, and 13 million people will lose their insurance--13 million.

I want to pause on that because countless times I have stood here at this very spot when there were almost 60 bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare, so we have been able to insert this now in the tax bill, which will really hurt it. I have always wondered why there was such a rush to take healthcare away from persons, and I guess somehow that money--obviously, that Medicaid money--will pay for a lot of these tax cuts for the rich.

All the tax cuts made for individuals will expire in 2025, but the tax cuts for corporations are permanent. That is not what we call reform. That keeps our Tax Code complicated by design. Wealthy families and big corporations can continue taking advantage of a system that they helped create.

Broken promises are embedded throughout the legislation. For years, I have heard members of the majority come to the floor talking about the need to address the national debt. Apparently, that was little more than a talking point, because this bill explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion and it is completely unpaid for. Because of that, Federal law requires cuts to programs Americans depend on, including a $25 billion cut to Medicare.

This isn't fear-mongering; this is fact. Speaker Ryan said just last week: ``We're going to have to get back next year.'' Next year we are going to say: Oh, my, we are going to have to do something about this spending and this debt, and so we will have to cut spending.

What is he going to cut? The things he has always wanted to cut. He says: ``We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.''

We have known he has wanted to do that for a long time.

So let me say this to the public watching today: When this majority speaks of reform, you should be very worried about your future. They pushed this scam under the guise of so-called reform, but it is simply a corporate giveaway. Soon they will be back here talking about reforming Social Security and Medicare to pay for what is going to happen here today.

Let's call it what it really is: a systematic dismantling of the social contract. It will impact everyone from children to veterans to the disabled. It begins today with this bill to help the wealthy who haven't even asked for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a conferee, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been the most awful process. Mr. Barton wanted to know why the Democrats weren't involved. We weren't involved in any of it, for heaven's sake. We almost didn't get to see a copy of what they had.

But I think the debate we have had here today must be very similar to the one we had in the Reagan administration. And David Stockman, who talked Ronald Reagan into trickle down, he says today it didn't work. It didn't work then. It didn't work for President Bush. It didn't work for the Governor from Kansas, whose name escapes me for the moment. Very recently, it didn't work, and it isn't going to work this time.

So I am really appalled that we are doing it. But I have to say that this was the worst process that any of us have ever been through. We operated on Thomas Jefferson's manual in the Rules Committee. We didn't even come close.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak on the PQ. We must protect middle class families against the disastrous Republican tax plan, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from being considered on the floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA's individual mandate.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Members of the majority have lined up today to tell the American people how great this bill is. If that is true, why were they afraid of holding a single hearing or listening to a single outside expert?

The 1986 tax bill had over 30 hearings and 430 witnesses and took well over a year; this one about three 3 months--written, apparently, by lobbyists. There wasn't a single hearing held on the text of this bill, not one. It was jammed through the Ways and Means Committee where our amendments, the Democrats', were blocked.

Democratic Members had under an hour to review the final text before voting. It was rushed to the Rules Committee a day earlier than announced with only 4 hours' notice, so nobody had any chance to read, and the majority there blocked 140 bipartisan amendments.

This has been a secretive process on both sides of the Capitol. Senators received the text of the final bill also within an hour of the vote. The nearly 500-page bill in the Senate was riddled with errors, last-minute edits, and illegible handwritten changes in the margins. There was a single meeting of a conference committee between the House and Senate. Members there were

prohibited from offering amendments or even seeing the negotiated text.

Imagine that, you couldn't even see what they were supposed to vote on. The Senators and Representatives sat around the table for show while the press reported that the deal, even before the meeting had started, had already been reached. The Democrats had no say at all.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady says he is proud of this process, but it will take a separate bill just to correct some of the errors here. And there is no reason to believe he would include Democrats in that process either. It would be another partisan effort.

Let me remind everyone watching that we used emergency procedures to meet this onerous bill. In this Congress, disaster relief is not an emergency. Isn't that amazing? Funding CHIP and community health centers is not an emergency. Disaster funding is not an emergency. But rushing these tax cuts to the wealthiest among us is an emergency.

This bill, which has no deadline, is their top priority, while real emergencies are being ignored, and it is shameful. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great fondness for Mr. Woodall. I think he is one of the best, most pleasant persons on the Rules Committee, and it grieves me that I have to, right off the bat here, take issue with him, but I have to take issue with the claim that Republicans completed their appropriation work on time.

I have got a timetable of the budget process that came from the website of the Budget Committee majority, on which my colleague, Mr. Woodall, serves. Let's review the most important deadlines.

First, the President must submit his budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. The truth: this year, the administration released what they called a skinny budget on March 16 and didn't release the full budget until May 23. From our reckoning, that is 4 months late.

Second, the Congress must complete action on the budget by April 15. The truth: this year, Republicans weren't able to get the fiscal year 2018 budget through Congress until October 26, over 6 months late and nearly a month into the new fiscal year.

Now, here is another deadline, again available on the Republican Budget Committee's website. The Appropriations Committee is supposed to complete their work by June 10. The truth: this year, they didn't report out any appropriations bills until after that deadline had passed.

Another deadline: the House is supposed to complete action on annual appropriations bills by June 30. The truth: not only did the Republican majority fail to meet that deadline, they weren't able to pass any of them separately at all. Instead, they lumped four bills together and passed them on July 27 and then passed an Omnibus with all 12 bills together on September 14, leaving 2 weeks only for the House and Senate to work out their differences, but the law said that they should have 3 months to do it.

I wouldn't bring this up except I know Mr. Woodall believes, with all his heart, that what he is saying is right, because we have heard it before.

That leads me to the final deadline that they missed. Fiscal year 2018 began October 1, but here we are more than two months later on December 7. The Republican majority has still failed to fund the government, because they have been too busy working to kill the Affordable Care Act and to give big tax breaks to corporations and billionaires.

On time, Mr. Speaker? Any school child could tell you that you don't get credit for an assignment that is 2 months late.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the timetable of the budget process from the website of the House Budget Committee majority.

Time Table of the Budget Process

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act establishes a

specific timetable for the congressional budget process.

On or Before, Action to be completed:

First Monday in February, President submits his budget;

February 15, Congressional Budget Office submits report to

Budget Committees; Not later than 6 weeks after the President

submits the budget, Committees

submit views and estimates to Budget Committees. (Frequently,

the House Budget Committee sets own date based on Legislative

Calendar); April 1, Senate Budget Committee reports

concurrent resolution on the budget; April 15, Congress

completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget.

(This is not signed by the President)*; May 15, Annual

appropriation bills may be considered in House; June 10,

House Appropriations Committee reports last annual

appropriation bill; June 15, Congress completes action on

reconciliation legislation. (If required by the budget

resolution); June 30, House completes action on annual

appropriation bills; October 1, Fiscal year begins.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has put before us today a 2- week continuing resolution to fund the government through December 22.

I have heard some in the majority question why anyone would take issue with this approach, but, Mr. Speaker, the question that should be asked is this one: What is the majority actually willing to get done over the next 2 weeks? Because it has now been more than 2 months since some vital national priorities have lapsed under their leadership.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare to more than 9 million children across this Nation, expired on September 30. So did the community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people. Now, this expiration has put 2,800 centers in danger of closure and 9 million people at risk for losing their access to their healthcare.

The Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their education, was allowed to expire by the majority with no reauthorization in sight, despite broad bipartisan support for a bill to do just that. Unfortunately, the majority has been unwilling even to bring it up for a vote.

Are they now ready to take meaningful action to protect our children, our students, our public health, and our Nation?

Democrats haven't just been fighting to reauthorize programs that expired 2 months ago, we are also trying to address the priorities that we know our Nation will face in the weeks ahead. That includes passing hurricane relief funding to help the families that are still recovering from this horrendous hurricane season; and as all of us are fearful of and sad about, California is burning once again; reauthorizing section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we depend on, which is due to expire at the end of this month. The FISA court helps to keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, if past is prologue, this majority will be missing in action 2 weeks from now, just as they have been for months.

Just consider, for a moment, how they have squandered this year, wasting months on fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act until persuaded by their constituents that they did not want that done. It remains the law of the land today after the public overwhelmingly demanded the majority stop that crusade.

Now they are trying to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that, if enacted, would represent one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen.

I want everybody to please pay attention to this, because it is proof positive of what is happening with this majority. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, under the majority's plan, those making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes combined over the next decade. Now, remember, they are going to pay more into the number of $5.3 billion.

At the same time--attention, America--those earning $1 million or more would see a $5.8 billion cut. Have you ever seen anything as cut and dry? They absolutely want to take from the poor to give to the rich--Robin Hood in reverse.

So we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the majority has been so preoccupied with the special interest agenda, that we haven't passed full year appropriations. This has robbed the Federal agencies and our economy of the certainty that they need.

The majority holds the House, the Senate, and the White House and still can't get anything done. So when Democrats see a continuing resolution for 2 weeks, we don't see a simple extension of the status quo; we see it for what it really is: kicking the can down the road in order to pursue reckless partisan politics, and it comes without any plan to tackle the major issues that face our Nation today.

Let me remind my colleagues how important it has been for both parties to work together, because in this process, both the CR and the tax bill, there are no Democrat fingerprints on any of it. For a lot of this stuff, there has even been no committee action.

Democrats have helped the majority pass every major funding bill since they assumed control in 2011. That is the result of bipartisanship.

This time, the majority decided not to compromise with us to reach a deal. Let's see if they can cobble together the votes to get this proposal over the finish line.

Even if it passes, we will be back here later this month to consider another short-term continuing resolution, and we still have no idea whether this bill, the one we are working on today, could even pass the Senate.

This is no way to run the United States of America. The lives of our countrymen are hanging in the balance.

All we do under this majority is to lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to the next. Our constituents deserve much better than this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said they need the Democrats. He must be aware that they only need us when the votes come.

There is not a Democrat fingerprint on that tax bill. We had nothing to say about any of it. And while we begged almost on our hands and knees to be a part of what they are doing, we are not. It always sounds good when we hear it on the floor: Bipartisan. Oh, look, we want to work together.

But then, oftentimes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, bills come to the Rules Committee with no committee action whatsoever and no possible description to be bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, for years we have endured relentless Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act, including just last week in the Senate's disastrous tax bill. By repealing the individual mandate, the Senate bill has knocked 13 million people from their health insurance.

I must have asked 20 times when they were doing those 60 times to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: Why do you want to take healthcare away from people?

I have never, to this day, gotten an answer as to why it is they so despise a healthcare bill that is working and has literally insured more Americans than have ever been insured before.

Then suddenly, just on a whim, one party decides--the one that has been fighting to kill it over and over again--that they will come at it piecemeal and just try to render it helpless by taking away the ability to even say it is time to go sign up again.

I am sure they thought they would do grievous harm, but it didn't work that way, and millions of people came out to sign up again because healthcare is one of the most critical needs for any American family.

To make matters worse, the bill also repeals most of the State and local tax deductions, and that is a deduction that helps middle class families in my State of New York.

New York, on average, gives back to the Federal Government of the United States $40 billion; money that we send to Washington and get nothing back for it, the way we are rewarded for that. I think that probably will not be happening anymore since the taxes are going to go up so much higher on the people of my State, unless they do away with what is absolutely one of the most atrocious things I have ever seen them do.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the tax bill was not designed to help middle class families put food on their table, but, instead, it gives corporation tax cuts to line the pockets of their shareholders.

I have yet to read or see the Senate tax bill, but I understand there are gifts in there for people who own jet planes. I don't represent any of those.

But taking care, again, of the rich, as demonstrated in the figures that supported my speech a while ago, that just

short of $6 billion, that goes from the poor people who make under $40,000 to the rich people, the same office, the same amount of money, dollar for dollar, and absolutely proves what we are saying.

But you don't need to hear from it me. Don't take my word for it. Republican Congressman Mark Sanford recently said in a moment of great candor: ``From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it's fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill, period.''

There is no tiny scintilla of reform in this bill. It is simply, as he points out, a way to lower the corporate tax and take care of the extraordinarily wealthy in this country who don't need it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could provide health for middle class families, which is what I believe the President of the United States thinks he did. I hear him say all the time that there is nothing in there to benefit him--except, probably, the estate tax, which we understand would save him about $1 billion.

So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation being considered on the floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA individual mandate.

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.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment and remind everyone watching of the impacts of the majority's last shutdown in 2013. The impacts on our economy were significant. We lost $24 billion in just those 2 weeks. The impacts on our economy, as I said, were very significant:

Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were brought to a halt.

Banks and other lenders were unable to access government verification services, which delayed private sector lending to small businesses and individuals alike.

Federal permitting was brought to a standstill, which delayed job- creating projects in the transportation and energy sectors.

Experts have estimated that all told, this 16-day shutdown cost our economy an estimated $24 billion.

So, during this shutdown, again, vital services were put on hold.

At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possibly lifesaving clinical trials.

Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency were unable to conduct health and safety inspections.

Federal scientific research was also halted, and we lost a lot of scientists in this country because of all that. Five Nobel Prize winning scientists who worked for the Federal Government at the time of the shutdown, four of the five of them were laid off.

This is all according to a report issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

The public knows how devastating another shutdown could be. According to a poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico released this week, there is bipartisan opposition, with 68 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents all opposing a government shutdown.

I forgot to mention up there about Social Security checks and things for the Veterans Administration. They came to a halt.

So that is what makes this so frustrating. I agree with Mr. Woodall. This is a frustrating part of what we are trying to do here. Every day it seems we get up and we face some kind of new disaster.

We could have crafted a bipartisan bill--we sure could have--that would have removed any question of whether a continuing resolution would pass the House and Senate.

We could have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, Perkins loans, and more months ago, if only the majority were willing to work with Democrats. Instead, bipartisanship is all too often becoming a dirty word under the majority. I sadly say: It is the American people left to pay the price.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act was enacted in 1994 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act. It is designed to address predatory lending practices in refinancing and home equity loans with high interest rates or fees.

Loans that meet these high-cost triggers are subject to disclosure requirements and limitations on the loan terms. Borrowers are also provided enhanced remedies if it is violated.

Now, the first bill before us, H.R. 1699, would amend the Truth in Lending Act by exempting manufactured home retailers from being defined as mortgage originators. In the process, it would exempt these retailers from important consumer protection rules. That would perpetuate conflicts of interest and restore incentives for these retailers to steer customers into loans with high costs and fees. These are precisely the type of loans that are more profitable for the retailer even though they are bad deals for the customer.

My good friend from Georgia asked what could be wrong with this; how can we protect those customers? I submit: You may not protect those consumers by taking all regulation off for them. Obviously, it was there for a reason, and we will see how it turns out.

Those may seem like arcane changes to existing law, but let me put the issue in better perspective.

According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes today. That is equal to the entire State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, why in the world is the majority prioritizing a bill that would undermine consumer protections for tens of millions of Americans. We know the legislation would create more access to affordable housing. It would only make the incredibly profitable manufacturing housing industry even more money through predatory lending.

Those who rely on manufactured housing as an affordable option deserve the same antipredatory lending standards as every other family. This bill fails that test. In fact, it was written specifically to take the protections away from the housing industry.

The second measure before us today, H.R. 4182, is completely unnecessary. It would extend the probationary period for members of the Senior Executive Service and members of the competitive service from 1 year to 2. That would double the time that new civil servants are essentially at-will employees without any employee protections or due process rights.

There is no evidence to support the need for doubling the probationary period for Federal employees. The bill would simply serve to delay employees' access to worker protection laws that ensure that they are treated fairly on the job. It would also undermine whistleblower rights and prevent them from coming forward.

These are the people who are essential to getting to the bottom of legal violations and waste and fraud in government agencies. Standing up for their rights used to be a bipartisan priority, but the majority is now prioritizing a bill that would undermine their rights and put the integrity of our Federal civil service at risk.

This comes on the heels of the majority bringing a separate bill, H.R. 3441, to the floor recently. That legislation threatened collective bargaining rights for employees and allows employers to evade liability for wage theft or even child labor violations. And just like the bill before us today, it chips away at workers' ability to do their job without retaliation or unfair treatment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here. The majority is bringing bills to the House floor that threaten worker protections while they work to advance a procorporate agenda at the same time.

There is perhaps no bigger giveaway on the agenda right now than their tax bill. Under the guise of so-called reform, the majority on the other side of the Capitol is crafting a tax bill that is nothing but a giveaway to the rich and powerful.

And, please, don't take my word for it. On Monday, The New York Times published a piece entitled: ``Senators Scramble to Advance Tax Bill That Increasingly Rewards Wealthy.'' The very first line of the piece gives away the majority's game plan. It said: ``The Republican tax bill hurtling through Congress is increasingly tilting the United States Tax Code to benefit wealthy Americans. . . .''

I believe that is beyond dispute by now. In fact, I think every major economist and publication have told us that that is exactly what it is. The scam will raise taxes on tens of millions of middle class families in order to hand deficit-exploding giveaways to the wealthy and corporations that ship jobs overseas. In fact, I heard an economist last night, Jared Bernstein, saying that he thinks this bill encourages moving jobs overseas.

The Republican plan eliminates the alternative minimum tax, which is designed to prevent the very rich from gaming the system. And the bill passed by the Chamber eliminates the estate tax, which will benefit the wealthy, certainly--and very few of them, though, are even liable for paying that tax.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, under the Republican plan, persons making $40,000 to $50,000 a year would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes, combined, over the next decade. At the same time, those earning $1 million or more a year would see a $5.8 billion tax cut.

Note, please, the similarity of those figures. If that isn't taking money from the poor to give to the rich, I don't know of anything that could describe it any better.

This is the third time America has tried trickle-down theory. It didn't work with President Reagan; it didn't work under President Bush; and, certainly, it did not work in Kansas. There is a word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That word is ``insanity.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, funding for the government expires on December 8. That is 8 days from now. We wonder why we are wasting time on unnecessary bills before us today and running us toward another shutdown.

Let me remind everyone watching here today about the last shutdown in 2013. The majority shut down the government rather than fund the Affordable Care Act, which was then and remains today the law of the land. The shutdown lasted 16 days. In just that short time, it cost our economy an estimated $24 billion. The shutdown cost the government $24 billion.

Federal facilities were not opened. The mom-and-pop stores and little restaurants in Federal buildings all closed. The processing of veterans' disability claims was stalled. Head Start grantees that serve an estimated 6,300 children were forced to close their doors for 9 days until some private philanthropists stepped in. Hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health.

Ninety-eight percent of the employees at the National Science Foundation, nearly 75 percent of the employees at the National Institutes of Health, and two-thirds of the employees at the Centers for Disease Control were furloughed. That brought new Federal research to a standstill.

An estimated $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed, denying middle class families the money they expected and planned for. Even the National Transportation Safety Board was impacted, unable to investigate 59 plane accidents as swiftly.

Another shutdown will be devastating, but I am afraid that is what we are headed for under the leadership here.

The President recently tweeted that he doesn't see a deal on the horizon. This comes after he tweeted earlier this year that our country needs a ``good shutdown.''

Instead of doing anything about that here today, we are frittering away precious legislative time on bills that are, at best, not urgent and, at worst, completely unnecessary and even damaging.

The greatest Nation on Earth will be struggling to keep the lights on. This is no way to run the United States.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill.

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

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

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

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