Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. Mr. Speaker, a group of 34 of my Republican colleagues sent a letter this week to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end on legislation that would protect DACA recipients. I include in the Record that letter. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, December 5, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan: We write in support of passing of a permanent legislative solution for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients before the end of the year. DACA recipients--young people brought to America through no fault of their own--are contributing members of our communities and our economy. For many, this is the only country they have ever known. They are American in every way except their immigration status. Since DACA's inception, the federal government has approved approximately 795,000 initial DACA applications and 924,000 renewals. Since being approved for DACA status, an overwhelming majority of these individuals have enrolled in school, found employment, or have served in the military. Studies have shown that passing legislation to permanently protect these individuals would add hundreds of billions to our country's gross domestic product (GDP). That is why the business community, universities, and civic leaders alike support a permanent legislative solution. We agree with President Trump that executive action was not the appropriate process for solving this issue, as was done under the previous administration, and we believe Congress should act. We are compelled to act immediately because many DACA recipients are about to lose or have already lost their permits in the wake of the program's rescission. Not acting is creating understandable uncertainty and anxiety amongst immigrant communities. While we firmly believe Congress must work to address other issues within our broken immigration system, it is imperative that Republicans and Democrats come together to solve this problem now and not wait until next year. We all agree that our border must be enforced, our national security defended, and our broken immigration system reformed, but in this moment, we must address the urgent matter before us in a balanced approach that does not harm valuable sectors of our economy nor the lives of these hard-working young people. We must pass legislation that protects DACA recipients from deportation and gives them the opportunity to apply for a more secured status in our country as soon as possible. Reaching across the aisle to protect DACA recipients before the holidays is the right thing to do. Sincerely, Scott Taylor; Dan Newhouse; Mia Love; Mark Amodei; David G. Valadao; Dave Reichert; Brian Fitzpatrick; Mike Coffman; Charlie Dent; Frank A. LoBiondo; Peter T. King; Carlos Curbelo; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Ryan A. Costello; Fred Upton; Jeff Denham; Rodney Davis; John J. Faso; John Katko; Chris Stewart; Susan W. Brooks; Adam Kinzinger; GT Thompson; Mike Simpson; Mimi Walters; Leonard Lance; Pat Meehan; Elise Stefanik; Tom MacArthur; Chris Smith; Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon; Joe Barton; Will Hurd; Bruce Poliquin.

Mr. HASTINGS. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have watched this year as members of the Republican majority have worked diligently to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have been a failure for the American people but great for special interests. I have watched members of the Republican majority work relentlessly to push a tax scam bill through this body that will certainly be a failure for the American people but great for corporate America and the ultrawealthy. I have watched members of the Republican majority here today and yesterday in the Rules Committee champion a bill that will be a failure for the American people, especially survivors of domestic violence, but great for the powerful corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers. I sense a theme for my friends across the aisle, and it is a shameful one. Mr. Speaker, our country faces a gun violence epidemic, and we here in Congress should be doing all that we can to put it to an end. The opportunity to pass a bipartisan measure to strengthen our background check system has presented itself, but apparently the majority, without hearings, would rather drown bipartisanship in the dirty waters of the corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers. I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: Those who stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless continuation. That is why I dubbed and gave the acronym GOP, ``Guns Over People,'' but I guess I should have used the acronym ``Good Old Puppets'' of the gun lobby and gun manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 645. personal explanation

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, for far too long, the Republican majority in Congress has treated Federal workers as if they are the problem. We have spent years beating up Federal employees, implementing pay freezes, implementing hiring freezes, and cutting benefits in order to drive employees away from government service. The legislation we are debating today continues this offensive unfair trend. This bill doubles the probationary period for employees of the civil service, in an effort to make it easier to fire the employees without giving them any chance to challenge that decision. In doing so, my Republican friends are sending a clear message, and that message is that they see Federal employees as untrustworthy and unworthy of being secure in their employment. The amendment I am offering would exempt those who have served this country through programs such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps from the 2-year probationary period under this legislation, instead keeping them at the 1-year level of probation already in effect. Last night, I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to extend this same exemption for veterans, but it was blocked from consideration. Let me say that again because I want every one watching to hear me loudly and clearly. Last night, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee voted to block an amendment that would have protected veterans employed in the government from being fired without cause. I was told by my colleague who introduced this measure that being able to fire veterans within a 2-year probationary period--footnote right there: veterans would have already served 2 or more years before becoming civil servants at that level--but I was told that, without giving them any legal protections, recourse, or even an ability to improve ``helps the veterans, just like it helps everyone.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that is hogwash. Veterans should not need to prove themselves worthy of a government job for a full 2 years before they are afforded the rights that should be inherent their position. We ought to be spending time working to strengthen our Federal workforce through better training and more plentiful diversity programs. Instead, this bill needlessly undermines our civil service and the fine people who work within it, while simultaneously making it a less attractive place of employment for our best and brightest at a time when we are in desperate need of such people. This amendment would protect those who have already served our country in the national service from this bill's intentions. In my opinion, we should be expanding protections for everyone--for veterans, women, minorities, LGBTQ Americans, and especially for disabled Americans. Let me say one more thing that I said last night, and this is with due respect to my colleague, Mr. Connolly, who is managing for the minority in this case, and the extraordinary number of constituents that he and the Members, both Republican and Democrat, in the near curtilage of this area here in metropolitan Washington, they do an incredible job. Their constituents virtually all are saying to them that this is an unnecessary measure. I am sure that Mr. Connolly has made that very clear. I heard him introduce measures that I introduced in the Rules Committee last night from a variety of organizations. I will not burden you more but to say that we should be about the business of trying to build a Federal workforce and not put obstacles in their way. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, yielded me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through obfuscation, mathematical gimmicks, and a rushed and closed process, and all in an obvious attempt to hide from the American people the devastating consequences the Republican-led tax scam bill will have on working class and middle class Americans. Just so we are all crystal clear on this point: Who, under this tax bill, benefits on the backs of working and middle class Americans? Yes, folks, it is the wealthy corporations and the richest among us. The Republican majority has made lofty claims about their bill, saying that because of this legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, jobs will be plentiful, and that the economy will grow exponentially and astronomically. The White House has even said that the tax cuts would result in each household receiving an additional $5,000 to $9,000 in annual income. Mr. Speaker, it seems there isn't anything that Republican leadership won't say to get their own Members to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, they can make all the claims they want, but the actual tax experts who have analyzed this bill paint a much darker picture about the consequences of this legislation. According to one nonpartisan tax analysis, today's Republican plan will result in a tax increase for 38 million middle class Americans. Not to worry, though. While these hardworking middle class families have to deal with the tax increase, the richest 0.2 percent of Americans will get a windfall. In fact, the estate provision in this bill alone would allow the heirs of just 11 ultrawealthy individuals to pocket up to $67.5 billion. An estimated 80 percent of the tax cuts in this legislation will go to wealthy corporations and the richest 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, even more astonishing, a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that this Republican tax bill could trigger automatic cuts to mandatory spending to the tune of $136 billion, including $25 billion in the Medicare cut. Let that sink in, because actually what is getting ready to happen here is we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and these deficit hawks on the other side are then going to turn right back around and say that we need to pay for these things. Then watch out Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, because that is the objective, in my view, in the first place. In order to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and corporations, my Republican colleagues are not only raising taxes on the middle class, but are now potentially triggering a $25 billion cut to Medicare. If this inequity were not staggering enough, Americans also have to keep in mind that today's Republican tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy is not only on the backs of the middle class, but also future generations, as this bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Not surprisingly, Republicans are making the tired excuse that these cuts will pay for themselves. If they did, then we would have the easiest jobs in the world. Just cut taxes, and magically we will have even more revenue to pay for the important needs of our country. That sounds a lot like the old trickle-down-which-never-worked economics. It sounds that way to me, and we all know that as far as economic theories go, that one was and is a complete and total dud. Mr. Speaker, to summarize the majority's attempt to overhaul our Tax Code for the first time in 30 years: they raise taxes on middle class Americans, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and manage to explode the debt all at the same time--all this while also leading the most closed Congress in history and shutting out Members of Congress who represent nearly half of the American people. Hear that, America: a lot of your Representatives had no opportunity to say or do anything regarding the measure that we are discussing. Mr. Speaker, let us step back and really get a full view of how callous this bill is for our Nation by looking at how the bill treats middle class Americans versus its treatment of the ultrawealthy and corporate America. Under this Republican tax scam bill, a working class schoolteacher who buys supplies for his or her students would not be able to deduct that expense, but a corporation that buys supplies for itself would be able to use such a deduction. Under this Republican tax bill, a middle class homeowner would see their property tax deduction capped at $10,000, but a corporation would not face the same cap. Under this Republican tax bill, if a worker was forced to relocate for his or her job--footnote there, including the military--because the company moved or, in the case of the military, they were relocated, he or she would not be able to deduct that moving expense; but if a corporation decided to relocate, even to relocate overseas, it will be able to deduct its moving expense. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. But we shouldn't be surprised. As the old adage goes, bad process makes for bad policy. Not since the Republicans' failed attempt to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans have we seen a process that is this bad. Take, for example, the last time Congress passed major tax reform legislation in 1986 and what that process looked like. During that effort, the Ways and Means Committee held a month of public hearings and took testimony from over 450 witnesses. The legislation before us now has had no--zero--public hearings and testimony from no--zero--expert witnesses. During the last tax reform overhaul, the Ways and Means Committee spent 26 days marking up the framework of the legislation. This time around, Republicans spent only 4 days marking up the legislation. The 1986 legislation framework was released a year before it was passed in the House. In contrast, the framework for this bill was released less than a month before they started today's process of jamming their final bill through the House. There were no hearings and no amendments made in order. From start to finish, there was less than a month of actual consideration. Much like the majority's rushed healthcare processes that produced an abysmal, destructive bill that would hurt working class Americans, this rushed process has produced a tax bill that benefits corporations and the wealthiest Americans, all while managing to raise taxes on the middle class and adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is lurching from one bad bill to the next with speed--not thoughtful policy--seemingly being the only goal. It begs the question: What is the rush? As a matter of fact, I don't even think we need a tax bill of this consequence. According to them, the economy is roaring, unemployment is low, interest rates are low. So what is wrong with certainly leaving the wealthy in the category that they are in? Why are my Republican colleagues setting an arbitrary deadline of passing a tax bill by Thanksgiving, instead of focusing on thoughtful policy and getting the substance right in a bipartisan fashion? Everyone agrees that we need to do something about the Tax Code. Democrats have been ready to work with Republicans on this effort, but have been shut out of the process at every turn. Why? The only logical conclusion is that this has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. It has nothing to do with helping the middle class, but instead is a callous political maneuver aimed at salvaging a stalled and ever-failing Republican agenda. We are about to end the year with nothing having been done of consequence. Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. This conclusion is not based on my own opinion. Some of my Republican colleagues have admitted as much. When asked about the need to move on to tax reform quickly, one of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle was heard to say: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' '' Likewise, on the other side of the Capitol, one Republican has stated that, if the Republicans fail on tax reform, just as they did on healthcare, financial contributions will stop. Mr. Speaker, I don't think politics should dictate our efforts to reform something as significant as the Tax Code. Our guiding light should be to help working folks get a leg up. The only way to do that is to work in a bipartisan, deliberate manner, hearing from experts and the American people, as they did in 1986, and not as my Republican friends have done this time around, spending a mere 3 weeks, with no hearings, no bipartisan efforts, simply to give us something done before Thanksgiving. That approach only gets you what we have here before us today: a bill that, in my opinion, does more harm than good to middle class Americans and puts our country further into debt. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last night, I pointed out to my colleague from Alabama, whom I greatly admire, that he has a number of people claiming medical expense deductions who won't be able to do so under this tax measure. The number of them, in fact, is 22,052, and the total amount claimed under medical expense deduction by them previously was $186 million. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished colleague who I sit next to on the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is like old home week from the Rules Committee people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a good friend who used to serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I will go home this week and tell people I voted against this horrible bill. And I will wonder if the last speaker would go home and tell the 11,249 people who utilize $131 million in medical deductions who will not have that under this bill, understanding that it could be different if they chose. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a newfound friend and a rising star.

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is old home week here with the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), another former member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am prepared to close and would advise the chairman of that regard. Mr. Speaker, a new Quinnipiac poll out yesterday shows the American people aren't falling for the Republican tax scam. Only 25 percent approve of this plan, just 16 percent think it will reduce their taxes, and only 24 percent said the Republican plan will help the middle class the most. Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the American people, throw this dangerous plan in the trash can, where it belongs, and let's work together on a bipartisan plan to help all Americans. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction, which prevents millions of families from being taxed twice on the same income. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. First, my Republican colleagues attempted to jam an abhorrent healthcare bill through Congress. They failed. After that failure, they moved on to today's attempt to jam an abhorrent tax bill through Congress. For the sake of middle and working class Americans, I hope my Republican friends ultimately meet defeat once again. Mr. Speaker, we set the record with this particular measure of 51 closed rules in this session, the most closed rules in the history of Congress. What that means is a lot of the Representatives who had good ideas, more than 100 of them that offered amendments last night, were unable to be heard because of closed rules. After this closed, disgraceful process, this Republican majority has presented, in this instance, a piece of legislation that skews tax cuts in favor of the ultrawealthy and rich corporations. Now, let's make it very clear. Wealthy people shouldn't be disrespected for their wealth, but I don't know any wealthy people who are knocking down my doors, saying that they need a few more thousand dollars. But I know a lot of poor people who need a few hundred dollars, and this particular measure is not doing many of the things that would allow for them to be able to get on that last rung of that ladder and lift themselves up. I heard the gentleman say a rising tide lifts all boats. They had the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show, the largest one in the world, the week before last. All those yachts were lifted, but those little dinghies with the people fishing out in Lake Okeechobee were not lifted one doggone bit by this particular measure. This bill does so on the backs of middle and working class people and future generations. With this bill, the former deficit hawk Republican majority would add $1.5 trillion to the debt while potentially triggering $25 billion in cuts to Medicare. I might add that is where they are headed. Look out Medicare, look out Social Security, look out Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.