Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people will look forward to a Thanksgiving and a Christmas of which families come together, but they will also see a Halloween.

Today, on the floor of the House, the Republicans will vote for the worst Halloween of hobgoblins and ghosts and monsters that you can ever imagine. Monsters scare children, so today we will be voting on that monster that will scare children.

Let me let you listen to Senator Sykes from Kansas, her State offering a Republican tax cut that was going to boost the economy. Her words are: ``With the benefit of hindsight, we can say with certainty this promise was unfulfilled. In the following 5 years, Kansas experienced nine rounds of budget cuts, stress on State agencies, and the inability to effectively provide the core functions of government for our citizens.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Senator Sykes' message to Congress.

A Message to Congress: Don't Make the Same Mistake We Did in Kansas

(By Dinah Sykes, a Republican member of the Kansas State Senate)

Americans want efficient government, responsible spending

and reasonable taxes. This is not difficult. Yet sometimes

what

seems so simple becomes complicated when these concepts are

turned into buzzwords and used as weapons for political gain.

In 2012, Republicans in Kansas enacted a ``revolutionary''

tax overhaul promised to be a ``shot of adrenaline to the

heart of the Kansas economy.'' With the benefit of hindsight,

we can say with certainty this promise was unfulfilled. In

the following five years, Kansas experienced nine rounds of

budget cuts, stress on state agencies and the inability to

effectively provide the core functions of government for our

citizens.

As Republicans in Congress begin working to modify the

federal tax code, I worry that tax reform done poorly could

lead to similar failure. I hope federal lawmakers learn from

mistakes made at the state level.

This year, the Kansas legislature--including many

Republicans like me--voted to partially restore income-tax

rates and to repeal a provision that allowed independent

business owners to pay almost no state taxes on their income.

We also overrode our governor's veto, who opposed rolling

back the tax cuts he championed.

Critics of our vote claim that Kansas didn't cut spending

enough to accompany the tax cuts. In reality, we cut our

budget through across-the-board cuts, targeted cuts,

rescission bills and allotments. Roughly 3,000 state employee

positions were cut, salaries were frozen, and road projects

canceled. We delayed payments to the state employee

retirement system and emptied our savings accounts. Even as

we issued more than $2 billion in new bonds to float our

debt, Kansas received three credit downgrades, making that

debt costlier.

In Kansas, we understand the allure of tax-cut promises. We

want to believe promises of amazing growth or outcomes. In

2012, traditional budget forecast models accurately predicted

the devastating effect the tax breaks would have on state

revenue. Proponents of the plan used dynamic scoring

predicting incredible economic growth and supporting their

own preconceived ideas. Today, we know which forecasts were

correct.

Across the state, citizens may have been paying less in

income taxes, but those decreases were offset by increases in

sales taxes, property taxes and fees. These changes alone

were not enough to put the state on the right path. Education

and infrastructure, key investments necessary for strong

economic growth, were treated as the enemy. As we went

through our 2017 legislative session, the ``shot of economic

adrenaline'' still showed no signs of materializing. Our

state functioned as though the Great Recession had never

ended.

Kansas should serve as a cautionary tale illustrating the

damage done when the normal order is shortchanged. America's

founders and countless generations of leaders embedded

deliberative procedures into our legislative process for a

reason. But in 2012, the governor's tax proposal looked very

different from the package he signed. A dispute between House

and Senate versions should have gone to conference committee;

however, the House cut short debate and rammed through a

motion to concur with the Senate instead. I watch now as

lawmakers in Congress use similar tactics, and I worry that

backroom dealing and circumvention of process will lead to

similar results.

I never anticipated entering public service. I was content

raising my family, participating in the PTA and operating my

business. However, I saw the impact that bad tax policy was

having on the state. I felt the results of growing class

sizes and shrinking programs in the schools my children

attended. I witnessed a gradual erosion of the quality of

life that makes Kansas such a great place to live.

There is a real temptation to let our frustration turn into

anger. In our increasingly polarized world, we see what

happens when we retreat to our ideological trenches. The

antidote, it would seem to me, is listening carefully to

those we disagree with and seeking common ground as a

starting point. (We should also note that failing to listen

to constituents while blindly holding to ideology can have

consequences: About a third of Kansas legislators became ex-

legislators in 2016.)

As our country looks at the key issues ahead of us,

including tax policy and health-care reform, we face

important questions: How can we as Americans work together to

improve our tax policy? How can we work together to provide

core government functions? Answering those questions requires

having civil conversations, learning from our neighbors and

sharing our experiences. We are better when we can work

together to find compromise.

What do you think will happen to this Nation if we vote for this budget plan, this Halloween of a plan?

The latest Republican budget mandates $4.9 trillion in budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this. I cannot vote for it because of the people in Texas after Hurricane Harvey; the people in Louisiana after Hurricane Nate; the people in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Florida after Hurricanes Maria and Irma. I cannot vote for this. This will gut disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veterans benefits, and it will clearly provide tax cuts for the rich.

The Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, wealthy corporations. It doesn't give any money to the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, it explodes the deficit.

How could this happen?

It demands higher cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and education. This is a Halloween that America will not tolerate.

My good friend from North Carolina, there will be over a million people that will lose benefits under this plan and the tax plan that they are planning. They will pay higher taxes. This is a bad bill. Vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.

As senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose this phony budget resolution, which is in reality nothing more than a smoke screen designed to pave the way for massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent, while exploding the debt and deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years.

Here are five reasons why every Member of this House should vote against this Republican budget resolution:

1. This Republican budget cuts nearly $1.3 trillion from Medicaid and nearly $500 million from Medicaid;

2. This Republican budget includes massive spending cuts to the priorities of the American people;

3. This Republican budget guts investment in areas critical to expanding economic opportunity;

4. This latest Republican budget uses fast track procedures to increase the debt and deficits by $1.5 trillion, while showering tax cuts on billionaires, millionaires, and the wealthiest corporations; and

5. As we have learned from bitter and painful experience, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, notwithstanding the supply-side fairy tale claims that they do.

This latest Republican budget mandates $4.9 trillion in spending cuts to top priorities like disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veteran benefits, and programs that expand opportunities for American families.

This Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations, while raising taxes on working and middle class families by $470 billion.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear and direct: the resolution before us is not intended to reconcile tax and spending priorities to reflect the priorities of the American people or to reduce the deficit and national debt or to put our fiscal house on a sustainable path to economic growth.

Rather the sole purpose of Republicans bringing this job-killing budget to the floor today is to fast-track their ``Billionaires First'' tax plan, which will cause significant harm to working and middle class families, especially to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

The McConnell-Ryan tax plan, which this budget resolution is designed to grease the skids for, would raise taxes on about 1.5 million Texas households, or 12.4 percent of households next year.

On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.

An estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.

The Ryan-McConnell plan eliminates this deduction, which would lower home values and put pressure on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.

The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions were claimed in the Lone Star State.

Equally terrible is that the McConnell-Ryan tax plan drastically reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an average credit of $2,689.

The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.

This reckless and irresponsible GOP tax plan is made all the more obscene by the fact that 80 percent of the GOP's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent.

To achieve this goal of giving more and more to the haves and the ``have mores,'' the GOP budget betrays seniors, children, the most vulnerable, and needy, and working and middle-class families.

The steep reductions in program investments proposed in this Republican budget fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

This Republican budget immediately guts investment critical to expanding economic opportunity by lowering the already inadequate austerity-level spending caps by an additional $5 billion in 2018 and by even more in subsequent years.

Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.8 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to Medicare over ten years.

The Republican budget focuses too narrowly on the military, shortchanging American soft-power and other essential elements of national security by increasing defense spending by $72 billion above the cap and hollowing out the State Department and foreign aid agencies with cuts of $11 billion and environmental and natural resource protection by more than $6 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.

Sadly, this latest Republican budget, just like the previous one and the President's ``skinny budget,'' fails this moral test of government.

America will not be made great by stealing another $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or disinvesting in the working families just to give unwanted tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent.

America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy.

Even a cursory review leaves the inescapable conclusion that this budget represents a betrayal--of our values as a nation, and of the promises made by the President during the election campaign.

This Republican budget is not a budget for the real world that real Americans live in but is as much a fantasy budget as the Trump ``Skinny Budget'' in that it pretends to achieve balance by assuming that painless spending cuts can and will be made by the Congress.

To put this reckless, irresponsible, and draconian budget in perspective, it is useful to examine what the proposed cuts mean when applied to the programs depended upon by Americans to rise up the economic ladder, plan for the future, provide for their families, and strive to achieve the American Dream.

The elimination of funding for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) drains resources from communities, even in times of disaster because CDBG provides flexible grants to local communities for a wide range of unique needs, including Meals on Wheels, housing programs, and community infrastructure improvements.

The Republican budget targets disaster grants made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which help families and businesses when their disaster-related property losses are not covered by insurance.

The Republican budget makes higher education more expensive by cutting at least $211 billion from student financial aid programs, like Pell Grants, over ten years.

The Republican budget also eliminates subsidized loans, making it difficult for students, particularly low-income students, to afford college and compounds the damage by making it more difficult to repay student loans by eliminating the Public Sector Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs.

The Republican budget's solution to the affordable housing crisis currently facing cities large and small all across the country is to convert all discretionary spending on affordable housing into a block grant, which means there will be even less assistance to help the 71 percent of extremely low income renter households who spend more than half their income on housing.

The Republican budget cuts at least $150 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next ten years by essentially converting it to a block grant, cutting off funding for eligible individuals and requiring cash-strapped states to either fill in the gap or take away food assistance from millions of working families, children, and seniors.

Mr. Speaker, as economists and policy experts have documented time and again, immigration reform would expand the size of the U.S. workforce, and in turn would increase the size of the economy and reduce deficits.

The Republican budget, however, again rejects comprehensive immigration reform that would bring clear and just rules for those seeking citizenship and help secure the nation's borders.

In doing so, the Republican budget squanders an opportunity to reduce deficits by an estimated $900 billion over the next two decades, boost the economy by 5.4 percent, and extend the solvency of Social Security.

The Republican budget continues to target federal employees by cutting their compensation and benefits by at least another $163 billion over ten years, which comes on top of the $182 billion in cuts federal employees have already absorbed in the form of higher retirement contributions, pay freezes, and furloughs.

The Republican budget cuts hurts veterans by cutting veterans benefits by nearly $50 billion over the next ten years, with newly eligible veterans experiencing cuts in programs that pay for education benefits as well as loan guarantees.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that the Republican budget's pretension to balance is based on reliance on trillions of dollars in budget games and gimmicks to rig the numbers.

The Republican budget counts a dubious $1.4 trillion ``economic dividend'' from cutting taxes and taking away consumer protections that is not backed up by any credible analysis or historical experience.

The Republican budget assumes, despite all precedent and evidence to the contrary, that tax reform will be revenue neutral, even though Republican tax plans are projected to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.

Given these budgetary shenanigans, never could it more truly be said that ``figures don't lie, but liars figure.''

In evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.

To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.

I strongly oppose the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and heartless budget resolution that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families, and the poor and vulnerable `caught in the tentacles of circumstance.'

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018.

Passing a budget is never easy, and it has, once again, been a challenge this year. But I am encouraged with where we are now, and I am pleased that the Senate did its work by approving a budget, one that we can support in order to unlock tax reform for the American people.

Without question, there are plenty of things that I wish were included in what the Senate passed, ideas that the House put forward earlier this month when we approved our budget. For example, I still feel strongly about addressing unsustainable mandatory spending, and that hasn't changed. The growing burden of debt caused by mandatory spending is a real problem that cannot be ignored.

We owe it to the American people to do something, to offer serious reforms that ensure government programs are financially sustainable and working well for generations to come, and I think we will tackle this important issue in the future. Really, we don't have a choice.

But despite any shortcomings of the Senate-passed budget, I am encouraged that it does reflect the shared priorities of both Chambers. Moving forward with this budget is also supported by our President.

I want to remind my colleagues that before final passage last week, the Senate did include numerous provisions previously passed by the House, and I was proud to be involved in those negotiations with the leaders of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

For example, the Senate-passed budget creates a mechanism that would permit the Budget Committee chairman to adjust the budget allocations if there is future legislation signed into law that revises the BCA spending caps.

The Senate-passed budget also includes numerous improvements to the House budget's enforcement that are designed to strengthen fiscal discipline. Because we worked together to find a common ground, we can move ahead toward tax reform and expand upon the ideas in the conservative framework unveiled last month.

Throughout my nearly 7 years as a Member of the House, Republicans have talked about modernizing our outdated and overly complicated tax system, and today, we have the opportunity to take that next big step to unlock tax reform for the American people, fulfilling the promise that we made long ago to our constituents.

By advancing tax reform, we can help Americans keep more of their hard-earned paychecks; we can make it possible for most Americans to file their taxes on a simple postcard; we can level the playing field for business and help them compete better globally; and we can empower entrepreneurs and small businesses, encouraging them to create more jobs.

This budget acknowledges that our economy is in desperate need of a jolt, and the tax cuts included in the Senate-passed budget hold that promise of doing just that. Put simply, we have the opportunity to make history by reforming our tax system for the first time in nearly three decades.

President Trump is with us on this, and I agree that we must move quickly, and that is why I urge my colleagues to pass this budget today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 71.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I just must make a comment on what went on in Kansas and the attribution that this was Mr. Laffer's idea.

I know Mr. Laffer personally and have had a conversation with him about his plan and suggestion. It was not followed. So I do want to lift up his good name and say that his plan was not followed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of both our Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that the Devil is in the details. And those details have not been released yet, so it is difficult for me to understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make assumptions on just what this tax plan will do, calling it things such as snake oil, when I can assure you that, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, it is our goal and intent that the people in the middle- and low-income categories will see tax relief.

I also want to remind them that what we know was the Devil in the details is the details given to the American people a number of years ago on the Affordable Care Act--which is neither affordable nor caring, in my opinion--was that people would see a return of about $2,500 on the average in their pocket as a result of the Affordable Care Act's policies, and what we saw and what we are seeing now is a big increase in those premiums. Certainly they have not received $2,500 in their pocket.

They were told they could keep their doctor, which we knew wasn't true, and the other kinds of things that were done that caused people to lose their insurance in my very own State, because we had a plan the people liked and people wanted to keep but could not because of the mandates that were put on by the Affordable Care Act.

I want to remind my friends from the other side of the aisle that maybe the thing to do is to wait and see what really is in the plan, because the devil is in the detail, and I think you may like it enough that you perhaps will even vote for this tax plan that does give a jolt to the economy and does help the American people, especially in the lower- and middle-income, to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), who is the chair of our RSC.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

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

I almost can't sit here and not make a comment on my colleagues' budget on the other side of the aisle. All of a sudden, they seem to be very concerned about deficits when, as a matter of fact, their budget assumed almost $1 trillion worth of deficits in their budget.

I want to also say that our committee did a really good job in having a balanced budget, and we are, obviously, looking at a budget from the Senate that we are going to be taking up so that we can do tax reform.

But they also, in addition to that, had $2 trillion worth of new taxes that they placed on the American people. So all of a sudden, this purity of worrying about these deficits just makes me scratch my head, and about raising taxes on the people when their own plan did the very opposite of what we are trying to do is cut taxes. They added $2 trillion worth of taxes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip, who is a wonderful member of our Conference.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my delight to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds, I want to once again say thank you to my colleague from the other side. I have enjoyed working with him. This is history. We are going to make history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in their support of the budget because doing so means that we can truly benefit the American people, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is not a real effort at responsible budgeting. It is a means to an end: a single-minded plan to make it easier to enact tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, regardless of the consequences for everyone else.

If approved by the House today, an irresponsible $1.5 trillion tax bill will come to the floor in a matter of weeks. It is being rushed because Republicans don't want the American people to know what is in it. They don't want you to find out that it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy while increasing taxes on millions of middle class families.

Rushing through legislation that impacts nearly every American family and business is reckless, and voting on a bill that rewrites our Nation's Tax Code a week or two after it is introduced without any real input from the people who will be impacted is negligent. But that is what you do when you can't defend your own policy.

And there are a lot of unjustifiable provisions in this budget. On top of massive tax cuts for the rich, it cuts vital national investments, threatening our economic progress and our national security. It cuts more than $4 trillion in mandatory spending, including nearly $2 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid alone.

The enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for American families cannot be overstated. But more cuts will be coming once the Republican tax cuts blow an enormous hole in the budget. We will see a tax on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, nutrition assistance--on important benefits that help American families get ahead.

I know my Republican colleagues desperately want to believe that the tax cuts in their budget will pay for themselves and usher in a new era of economic growth--or at least they want the American people to believe that. But the record is clear, this approach has failed time and time again.

And now, even though the evidence and experts have concluded that these tax cuts will not create an economic boom but will, instead, lead to a higher concentration of wealth among the rich while dramatically increasing deficits and debt, my Republican colleagues are trying to do it again.

Everything we do in Congress should be about making the lives of American families better and more secure. We owe them a budget that invests in their future, a Tax Code that is fair, and a full and honest debate on both. This budget and the tax cuts that will follow are a failure on all fronts.

I, therefore, urge my Republican colleagues to abandon this dangerous budget and start addressing the needs and priorities of the American people.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished Member of the House Budget Committee and Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the prior speaker, my friend from California, that Arthur Laffer was also the architect of the Kansas plan, which was disastrous for that State. So citing him as a source, I would be a little bit careful.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ half minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

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

As we wind down our arguments here, once again, we have had a very fascinating discussion and, once again, we seem to disagree on virtually everything.

For instance, I have heard from the other side many times over the last few days and today that we really can't say what the impact is, the claims that we are making about whether this bill will help the rich or help the middle class or help lower income individuals, because we don't have the details. Well, that is absolutely correct; we don't have the details.

But then, if we don't have the details, how can the other side talk about the huge benefits that this proposal, this tax proposal that is yet unwritten, will provide for the middle class? And how can they deny that it will benefit the wealthy disproportionately?

We know from the outline that was released by the other side in recent weeks that they intend to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax only benefits wealthy Americans, people with estates over $11 million for a couple.

They want to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. We know the alternative minimum tax only affects wealthy individuals. There was one estimate that the one year of President Trump's tax return that we have, that in that year alone, the alternative minimum tax, if it were repealed, would have saved him $30 million. So we know that affects very wealthy people.

We know that if you reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, that benefits very high-income people. So we do have enough information to draw some pretty definite conclusions about the impact that the released outline, at least, will have on wealthy Americans, and we can draw some of the same conclusions about how it will hurt middle class Americans.

If, in fact, the Republican tax bill repeals the deduction for State and local taxes. In my State, there will be half a million people who will lose an average of $9,900 of deductions every year. So we absolutely know the impact that the proposal, as we know it now, will have, and I think it is fair--given that there will be no hearings on this bill--it is fair to raise the alarms about what the potential for this bill is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now have the distinct honor of yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that, for anyone watching this debate or watching any of our discussions out there in the country, I know it often appears that we don't get along, that we hate each other, and that we are at each other's throat, but nothing could be further from the truth.

It has been such an honor to work with Chairman Black as a member of the Budget Committee and all the Members. We do all respect each other and get along. We just have some very serious disagreements about policy. That is fair. That is what this country is about.

Once again, since I may not get to do it again as Chairman Black pursues another office and probably won't appear with me on the same program anymore, I just want to wish her the best and say what a joy it has been to work with her.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to recognize Mr. Yarmuth's extraordinary leadership as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. As we all know, budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in how we allocate our resources.

Again, it is a statement of values, and who better to manage all of that in this Congress of the United States than Mr. Yarmuth, who brings his values and his heartland priorities to the budget process, and I thank him for the leadership he has provided.

Sadly though, I rise in opposition to what the Republicans have proposed which is a devastating Republican budget. The first step in the GOP's dangerous plan to fast track their immoral tax framework is to hand trillions of dollars to the wealthy while raising taxes on working American families.

The Republican budget and tax plan cruelly rig an unfair system even further against hardworking Americans. It cuts a raw deal for families in every corner of our country. Democrats have a better deal, better jobs, better pay, better future.

But right here, before our eyes in this House, Republicans are replacing the great American ladders of opportunity with the silver spoons of plutocracy and aristocracy. Their agenda raises taxes on the middle class. That is a fact. Tens of millions of middle class families will pay higher taxes, including a heavier burden for State and local taxes.

It might be interesting to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Scalise-- and isn't it a joy to see him in debate on the floor--in his State of Louisiana, 458,000 people will pay an average of nearly $7,000 more by losing their deduction.

And Congresswoman Black, from the great State of Tennessee, in her State, 573,960 people will lose their deduction, around $5,600 a filer.

Not only that, if that isn't bad enough for assaulting the dream of homeownership in our country by attacking the deduction, this plan that the Republicans propose has been estimated to reduce the value of people's homes by 10 percent. You not only are paying more money in order to give a tax break to the wealthy and to big corporations, you are reducing the value of your home, and, by the way, your neighbors' homes as well.

So with all of the unfairness in it, the one that is most understandable to people directly is how it affects them. And in that case, 44 million Americans will pay more because of what the Republicans have in their plan.

So it raises taxes on middle class, particularly with the State and local tax deduction removed. And by the way--another by the way--if you are a corporation, your deduction is not removed, just if you are an individual filer, so again, an advantage to corporate America at the expense of America's working families.

Next, it borrows trillions from the future to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Eighty percent of the tax cuts in this Republican proposal goes to the wealthiest 1 percent; 80 percent goes to the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of America's working families and children. The budget on the floor today reveals the true cruelty behind the Republican's tax plan. What words would be best to use it? It is looting the middle class, massive looting of the middle class; rip-off of the middle class, because there are many middle class people.

So you take some money from all of those middle class people and those who aspire to it so that you can give a lot of money to the few. That is a big sucking up of assets from the middle class to the wealthy. That is what they are here for. It is in their DNA: trickle- down economics. It is in their DNA. That is what the Republicans come here to do, and that causes a deep addition to the national debt.

They are supposed to be deficit hawks, but I think they have become an endangered species because they don't seem to care that, with the cuts that they are taking, the tax breaks they are giving to corporate and wealthy America will cost over $2 trillion--not counting service on the national debt which would take it closer to $3 trillion additional.

That is a very hard road to come back from. And as our distinguished ranking member has pointed out, the opportunity cost in the budget, whether it is a trillion dollars from Medicaid, half a trillion dollars from Medicare, funds taken from education, the seed corn of America's preeminence in the world. Why? To give a tax cut to the high end.

And they will say: Oh, well, the growth will come from this. We will pay for that.

It never has; never has. Don't take it from me. Bruce Bartlett, who was one of the orchestrators of the supply-side economics said: We never said it paid for itself. Anyone who says it does, it is not true. It is nonsense.

He went even further to call it BS.

As I said, it ransacks Medicare and Medicaid, adding trillions to the debt in tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, looting the middle class, shaking down the middle class, ripping off the middle class, increasing the taxes of the middle class.

It devastates vital investments, as our distinguished ranking member said, in good-paying jobs with higher wages for working families, the education of our children, the health of our working families. It really is a good example of what they say that Medicare should wither on the vine. In keeping with their trickle-down economics, Medicare should wither on the vine because they will take half a trillion dollars from Medicare in their budget that will follow.

So Republicans will harm veterans, rural America, seniors, and children, again, all in the name of fast-tracking trillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent. What more do you need to know? Eighty percent goes to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Again and again on the floor, the Republicans have tried to tilt the playing field against hardworking families. This is really quite remarkable though. This is a great transformative moment for America where we can reject this assault on the middle class, this addition to the national debt, and instead, say: Let's go to the table and work in a bipartisan way to truly reform our Tax Code so that we can be competitive in the world; so that families can thrive, and that they can have the deductions that are fair for them and needed, and not taken away from them, but not taken away from corporate America. So we stand ready to go in a bipartisan way to work to do this.

Any tax cuts, because this isn't just tax cuts to the rich--that is not tax reform--any tax cuts, any agenda like that has to be bipartisan in order for it to be sustainable. So let's come to our senses here. Common sense says--well, mathematics says, if you take a lot of money from many people to give it to a few, you are exacerbating the disparity of opportunity equity income in our country.

This is the wrong thing to do. It is not what our values are about. It is really a shame that they would even bring such a document to the floor. Anybody who lives in a district where their deductions, the tax deductions for State and local taxes, are taken away from individual filers, but not for corporations, as the bill determines, to the tune-- and I can read you all of the statistics across the country about how devastating this is--as our own Governor said: How could they do that to our State or any State without the department of finance of our States saying: Wait a minute. Understand what this does to the economy of our State. Understand what this does to our individual filers in our State.

Who said that this document that came over from the Senate should have such a devastating impact on States and Members coming to the floor and endorsing it. Some say: Oh, I am just voting for the budget, but it really isn't what it--no. No. You are putting your name next to taking the deduction of homeownership and of State and local taxes away from your constituents. They are going to know that. I would rather you reject this. We don't want a political argument. We want to protect the American people.

That is why I hope everyone here would come down in favor of the middle class and reject this assault, this rip-off, this shakedown of the middle class that the Republicans have on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1698) to expand sanctions against Iran with respect to the ballistic missile program of Iran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives here considers four measures that we have worked on in a bipartisan way, four measures that are consistent with the President's call for an approach to Iran that addresses the full range of threats that it possesses to not just the United States, but to our allies, to our partners as well.

This legislation, which I have authored along with my colleague, Eliot Engel, I am proud to say we now have 323 cosponsors to this bill. This is the bipartisan Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act.

What this does is respond to the regime's continued pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles and to dangerous conventional weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my good friend, Mr. Engel, for his hard work, his collaboration, along with Mr. Steny Hoyer and Mr. McCarthy, in bringing this important legislation to this floor.

Iran has already developed an arsenal of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and those missiles put our allies, our partners, as well as U.S. forces in range.

Now Iran is working on intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think to get the point across, I would just quote our former Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, because he testified before Congress on this issue. What he conveyed to us is: `` . . . the I in ICBM stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability from flying from Iran to the United States, and we don't want that.''

That was the way he explained this.

One of the reasons that we don't want that is that intercontinental ballistic missiles are inherently capable of carrying nuclear weapons. In fact, as one expert told the Foreign Affairs Committee, ``no country that has not aspired to possess nuclear weapons has ever opted to sustain'' a lengthy and expensive missile program.

I would take issue with that. I do know of one exception to that rule. That exception was South Africa under the apartheid regime, which did develop the atomic weapon. It is an example of how sanctions can be successful, because when we passed sanctions here, the consequence was they made a decision to turn that weapon back over to the IAEA, as well as to allow Nelson Mandela to leave jail, and they held elections. That is the exception I know of.

So whether you supported the nuclear deal or whether you opposed that nuclear deal, this other issue should concern you either way. By developing the delivery system, Iran is keeping its options open.

So from those who worked on the deal, one of the architects, Jake Sullivan of the former administration, made it clear to us--and this was 2 weeks ago--that imposing costs on Iran for its continued pursuit of ballistic missiles and other destabilizing activity is ``not only necessary, but justified.''

That is one of the architects of the agreement itself.

That is what this bill does. It requires a comprehensive investigation to identify and designate the companies, the banks, the individuals inside and outside of Iran which supply the regime's missiles and supply their conventional weapons programs, and it sanctions them. In doing so, it shuts out Iranian and foreign companies involved in Iran's missile program. It also shuts out the banks that back them. It shuts them out from the global financial system.

This bill expands Iran sanctions that we passed and were signed into law in August with H.R. 3364, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

For example, while the bill that passed over the summer specifically sanctions those who materially contribute to Iran's ballistic missile program, the bill before us today goes a step further by sanctioning those that are in the business of financing Iran's efforts.

The conventional weapons prohibition in the bill before us are also stronger, and let me explain why. The August legislation referenced the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which excludes such items as Russia's recent sale of the S-300 air defense system to Iran. The bill before us ensures that there is no such carve-out.

Mr. Speaker, Members have different views on how to handle Iran's nuclear program, but when it comes to Iran's ballistic missile and conventional weapons programs, all 323 cosponsors of this bill agree: Iran has no business developing or acquiring intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is why it is so important that we pass this bill and give the administration the tools to respond.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, October 23, 2017.

Hon. Edward R. Royce,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Royce: I am writing with respect to H.R.

1698, the ``Iran Ballistic Missiles and International

Sanctions Enforcement Act,'' on which the Committee on Ways

and Means was granted an additional referral.

As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions

in H.R. 1698 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means, I agree to waive formal

consideration of this bill so that it may move expeditiously

to the floor. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this

action with the mutual understanding that we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately

consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation

moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues

that fall within our jurisdiction. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of

our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1698.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brady,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. He is a former Federal prosecutor and a senior member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the esteemed majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, and she is the author of multiple laws addressing the Iranian threat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). He is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit any statements or any material in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all our members who worked on this bill. Over the last few years, the Foreign Affairs Committee has conducted dedicated oversight of the threats posed by Iran, and we have had dozens of hearings. And whether the topic was the nuclear program, or the missile program, or Iran's support for terrorism, or the regime's human rights abuses, the conclusion was clear. The United States must respond to the full range of threats, and with this bill and the others before us, that is what we are doing here today.

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

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