United States Employee Ownership Bank Act

Mr. Speaker, this is not the American Dream tax plan. This is the American nightmare, a tax scam of the worst proportion.

With over 8,000 of my constituents last evening on a teleconference town hall meeting, overwhelmingly they disagreed with a tax plan that cuts Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts, eliminates the mortgage tax deduction, so that those who are suffering from Hurricane Harvey, trying to rebuild their lives, seeking a new home cannot, in fact, deduct their mortgage.

The same thing with the 200,000 Texans who are going to pay more because we are eliminating the deduction for State and local taxes, and eliminating deductions for student loans, casualty losses; by next year, $25 billion in Social Security cuts.

My seniors on the phone last night asked me about those cuts. They asked me about the medical expenses cuts for seniors. All of that is eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a sample of tele-townhall survey questions and answers

Tax Tele-Townhall Survey Questions and Answers

(1) Do you agree that a tax bill should cut tax at the

expense of Medicaid and Medicare? 95 percent said no.

(2) The current tax reform bill will eliminate the tax

deduction for student loan interest and the lifetime learning

credit. Do you support the elimination of these tax credits?

91 percent said no.

(3) The current tax code allows homeowners to deduct

interest on mortgages. Would you support a tax plan that

includes a reduction in credit for first-time home buyers? 95

percent said no.

Mr. Speaker, this plan will show no growth. The neutral tax policy entity said you will get no growth, no growth in wages, and you will send jobs overseas in waves.

It is a tax scam and it is an American nightmare. Vote against this tax scam

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called ``Tax Cut and Jobs Act,'' which more accurately should be called the ``Republican Tax Scam Act.''

I oppose this cruel and immoral $1.7 trillion tax giveaway to wealthy corporations and the top one percent because it raises taxes on poor, working, and middle class families; explodes the deficit by adding an additional $2.2 trillion over ten years; and will require an estimated $5.4 trillion cut in funding for the programs ordinary Americans depend on for health security, educational opportunity, and economic progress.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are not fooled; they know trickle-down economics has never worked, and they see right through this phony tax plan and recognize it for the scam that it is.

That is why Americans reject this Republican tax giveaway by an overwhelming 2:1 margin according to a poll released yesterday by Quinnipiac.

Specifically, 61 percent think the Republican tax scam will benefit the wealthy the most; only 16 percent say the plan will reduce their taxes.

59 percent think it is a very bad idea to eliminate the deduction for state and local income taxes.

Nearly half of respondents (40 percent) think it a bad idea to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

This Republican tax plan is even more toxic to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, my constituents and others in Texas are still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, the worst storm ever to make landfall in the continental United States.

Yet last evening, nearly 8,000 of them took time out of their busy schedules to join me in a tele-townhall to discuss the tax scheme that has been rushed to the floor for a vote by the Republican leadership in the hope of passing it before the American people learn its insidious details.

But I have got news for them: too late.

My constituents understand and let me know that they believe it is important that the United States has a tax system that is fair, balanced, smart, and provides the resources and opportunities to allow all Americans to reach their potential.

And by margins exceeding 90 percent, they reject:

1. Any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts for wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent;

2. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction;

3. Eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes;

4. Eliminating existing deductions for student loan interest or making taxable college endowment funds or college fellowships expenses.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, and Americans across the country, oppose this unfair Republican tax giveaway because nearly half of the $1.7 trillion tax cut goes to just the top one percent.

In fact, the average annual tax cut for the top one-tenth of one percent is $320,000; for the top one percent it is $62,000, and for those earning $1 million a year it is $68,000.

Nearly 25 percent of the tax cut goes to households in just the top one-tenth of one percent, who make at least $5 million a year (2027).

While super-wealthy corporations and individuals are reaping windfalls, millions of middle-class and working families will see their taxes go up:

1. 13 million households face a tax increase next year.

2. 45 million households face a tax increase in 2027.

3. 29 million households (21 percent) earning less than $100,000 a year see a tax increase.

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.

It is shocking, but not surprising, that under this Republican tax scam, the total value of tax cuts for just the top one percent is more than the entire tax cut for the lower 95 percent of earners.

Put another way, those earning more than $912,000 a year will get more in tax cuts than 180 million households combined.

The core of this Republican tax scheme is a massive tax cut from 35 percent to 20 percent for corporations, but that is not the only way that the wealthy are rewarded.

The massive tax cuts for corporations are permanent but temporary for working and middle-class families.

Another immoral aspect of this terrible tax scam is that it abandons families that face natural disasters or high medical costs by repealing deductions for casualty losses and medical expenses.

Mr. Speaker, in what universe does it make any sense to eliminate, as this bill would, a deduction for:

1. Teachers who purchase supplies for their classroom;

2. Moving expenses to take a new job and taxes employer-provided moving expenses; or

3. Dependent care assistance, making it harder for families to afford day care, nursery school, or care for aging parents?

This Republican tax scam jeopardizes American innovation and competitiveness by eliminating the deduction for student loan interest, which affects 12 million borrowers, and cuts total education assistance by more than $64 billion.

Under the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and the determined efforts of ordinary Americans, we pulled our way out from under the worst of the foreclosure crisis when the housing bubble burst in 2007.

Inexplicably, Republicans are now championing a tax scheme that will make the homes of average Americans less valuable because deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes are much less valuable than under current law.

A tax plan that reduces home values, as this one does, puts pressure on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.

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

But this is not the end of the bad news that will be delivered were this tax scam to become law, not by a long shot.

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 this Republican tax scam 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.

So to achieve their goal of giving more and more to the haves and the ``have mores,'' our Republican friends are willing to betray seniors, children, the most vulnerable and needy, and working and middle-class families.

The $5.4 trillion cuts in program investments that will be required to pay for this tax giveaway to wealthy corporations and individuals will fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

America will not be made great by financing a $1.7 trillion tax cut for the rich by stealing $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.

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 just to pay for a tax cut to corporations and individuals who do not even need it.

Mr. Speaker, the tax scheme presented here by Republicans is not a plan but a scam that represents a betrayal of our values as a nation.

This tax scam is not a revenue policy adapted for the real world that real Americans live in but a fantasy resting on the monstrous belief that the wealthy have too little money and that poor, working, and middle-class families have too much.

Our Republican friends continue to cling to the fantasy belief that their tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves despite all precedent to the contrary and evidence that their tax scheme is projected by experts to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, in evaluating the merits of a taxing system, 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 plan must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican tax bill fails both of these standards.

I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the ``Republican Tax Scam Act,'' and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and heartless proposal 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, I include in the Record The Washington Post op-ed, ``The Republican tax plan's five worst dangers,'' by Secretary Rubin, dated November 15, 2017

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2017]

The Republican Tax Plan's Five Worst Dangers

(By Robert Rubin)

The deficit-funded tax cuts advancing through Congress are

a fiscal tragedy for which our country will pay a huge price

over time. While the details of the tax plan remain in flux,

its fundamental contours will not change. Nor will its $1.5

trillion of deficit funding, the amount stipulated in the

recently passed budget resolution.

Perhaps it's hopeless to expect those in Congress who have

long bemoaned deficits and the debt to oppose the plan. If,

however, as a matter of conscience or renewed reflection they

decide to take heed, here are the fiscal dangers posed by the

plan.

To start, the tax cuts will not increase growth and, given

their fiscal effects, would likely have a significant and

increasingly negative impact. The nonpartisan Tax Policy

Center's latest report estimated that, over 10 years, the

average increase in our growth rate would be roughly zero,

counting the crowding out of private investment by increasing

deficits but not counting other adverse effects of worsening

our fiscal outlook. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, using the

same approach, estimates virtually no increase in long-term

growth. Goldman Sachs projects an increase of 0.1 percent to

0.2 percent in the first couple of years and an average

increase over 10 years of just 0.05 percent per year, not

counting any of the adverse fiscal effects.

These estimates reflect three underlying views held by

mainstream economists. First, individual tax cuts will not

materially induce people to work more. Second, corporate tax

cuts will likely have limited effect on investment or

decisions about where to locate

business activity, given the many other variables at play.

Third, deficit-funded tax cuts will have little short-term

effect on growth, except perhaps for some temporary

overheating, because we are at roughly full employment.

With no additional revenue from increased growth to offset

the tax cuts' cost, the publicly held debt of the federal

government would increase by $1.5 trillion. An additional

danger is that the actual deficit impact would be increased

by abandoning the Congressional Budget Office's nonpartisan

evaluation that has been used for decades by both parties in

favor of partisan calculations by those pushing the tax cuts.

Adding $1.5 trillion or more to the federal debt would make

an already bad situation worse. A useful measure of our

fiscal position is the ratio of publicly held government debt

to economic output or gross domestic product, called the

debt/GDP ratio. In 2000, the debt/GDP ratio was 32 percent.

The ratio is now 77 percent. Looking forward, the CBO

projects the debt/GDP ratio to be 91 percent in 2027 and 150

percent in 2047. After $1.5 trillion of deficit-funded tax

cuts, those future ratios have been estimated to increase to

roughly 97 percent in 2027 and 160 percent in 2047. These

estimates likely substantially understate the worsening of

our fiscal trajectory. That's because they do not account for

the increasingly adverse effect on growth of the difficult-

to-quantify effects of fiscal deterioration.

Exacerbating our already unsustainable fiscal trajectory

with these tax cuts would threaten growth in five respects.

These are highly likely to be substantial and to increase

over time.

First, business confidence would likely be negatively

affected by creating uncertainty about future policy and

heightening concern about our political system's ability to

meet our economic policy challenges.

Second, our country's resilience to deal with inevitable

future economic and geopolitical emergencies, including the

effects of climate change, would continue to decline.

Third, funds available for public investment, national

security and defense spending--a professed concern of many

tax-cut proponents--would continue to decline as debt rises,

because of rising interest costs and the increased risk of

borrowing to fund government activities.

Fourth, Treasury bond interest rates would be highly likely

to increase over time because of increased demand for the

supply of savings and increased concern about future

imbalances. That, in turn, would raise private-sector

interest rates, which could also increase due to widening

spreads vs. Treasuries, further reflecting increased concern

about future conditions. And even a limited increase in the

debt/GDP ratio could focus attention on our fiscal

trajectory's long-ignored risks and trigger outsize increases

in Treasury and private-sector interest rates. The ability to

borrow in our own currency, and to print it through the

Federal Reserve, may diminish these risks for a while, as

might capital inflows from abroad. But these mitigating

factors have their limits; at some point, unsound fiscal

conditions almost surely would undermine our currency and

debt markets.

Finally, at some unpredictable point, fiscal conditions--

and these market dynamics--would likely be seen as

sufficiently serious to cause severe market and economic

destabilization.

We have an imperative need to address our unsustainable

longer-term fiscal trajectory with sound economic policies.

Few elected officials want to face this fact, but, at the

very least, they should not make matters worse. We can only

hope that responsible elected officials will prevent this

irresponsible tax plan from being adopted.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I include in the Record, first a letter from the Commissioner of Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, who has detailed out the impact of this tax on Connecticut residents.

November 8, 2017.

Hon. John B. Larson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Larson: Thank you for opportunity to

comment on the federal tax changes being considered in H.R.

1. We appreciate your leadership in trying to set the record

straight as this partisan effort is rushed to judgment with

no real input and much fiscal uncertainty.

Unfortunately, what we see so far from a national and state

perspective is very troubling. Some of the proposals to

reduce taxes on corporate and pass-through business income

could provide needed economic stimulus nationally and for

states like Connecticut. Unfortunately, on balance, H.R. 1 is

fundamentally flawed:

Even the low estimate of a $1.5 trillion cost is not paid

for and is really massive federal tax deficit spending. The

nation has been down this road before and surely we should

have learned something from the worst economic recession in

modern times.

Otherwise unaffordable tax cuts have long been part of a

political strategy to ``starve the beast.'' Due to its long

term unfunded cost, this Republican tax plan will compel big

cuts in federal funding, such as Medicaid, that are important

to states like Connecticut.

Contrary to all the talk of a ``middle income tax cut,''

the plan actually represents a huge windfall to the very

wealthiest federal taxpayers and is truly regressive. For our

own state of Connecticut, over 75% of the tax cut goes to the

top 1% who would pay 8.5% less on average. Everyone else

would see a trivial 1.2% reduction in federal tax liability

and many will actually owe much more in federal income taxes.

As discussed more specifically below, the proposed plan

shifts most of the tax cost and the least of any tax benefit

to states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast

regions of the country. Thus, Connecticut and similar states

will even more disproportionately pay in federal taxes far

more than is received in federal benefits--further

subsidizing regions of the country where states make far less

of a state and local tax effort.

Drilling down a bit further, several aspects of this

partisan plan will hit especially hard:

Eliminating deductibility of state income tax paid is worth

an estimated $8.7 billion to mostly middle income Connecticut

taxpayers.

Capping deductibility of local property tax paid at $10,000

will increase federal income taxes for a significant

proportion of Connecticut taxpayers who claim $4.9 billion.

Any benefit to lower and lower moderate income taxpayers

from higher standard deductions and child care credits will

likely be more than offset by the shell game of imposing a

higher lowest rate bracket of 12% and replacing the current

$4,050 personal exemption with a $300 deduction that is

proposed to end in 5 years.

Eliminating deductibility of medical/dental expenses will

be $1.6 billion hardship for Connecticut taxpayers at all

levels who are out of work and have catastrophic medical

costs.

Eliminating deductibility of student loan interest only

adds a further financial burden for primarily younger

taxpayers and their families already struggling with

educational indebtedness.

Sadly, these and many other significant issues of fiscal

irresponsibility and tax unfairness seem to be of no concern

in the partisan rush to pass legislation before taxpayers see

through the slogans and realize the costs. Indeed, glimpses

of what may be in the Republican Senate version suggests that

it will only get worse. Thank you for your efforts to speak

out for our Connecticut taxpayers and set the record

straight.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Sullivan,

Commissioner.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter out of a cross section of constituents who are directly and adversely impacted by this tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a

transcript of an interview with our esteemed chairman, Kevin Brady, and Heidi Przybyla that appeared on ``Morning Joe.''

Kevin Brady-Morning Joe Transcript--Friday, November 3

Heidi Przybyla, USA Today: This economic growth that you

all are promising, it cannot happen unless the cuts occur at

the same time. In fact the Joint Committee on Taxation's

economic model assumes that the type of tax cuts that you're

doing now that are not paid for could actually be a drag on

economic growth. Can you please speak to that?

Brady: The reason we moved back towards a balanced budget

is one, there is substantial growth, miss, but again, that

won't do it. You have to simplify the code, eliminate so much

of these special breaks on the business and the individual

side as well. It's the combination of both of those that gets

you back to a balanced budget over time. That's why people

complain `Look you're really simplifying the code

dramatically, there's a lot of things that go'. Not everyone

is happy about that but that is what, sort of the tough

choices you have to make, along with growth, to make sure

this moves us toward a balanced budget.

Przybyla: But that is not what's happening here. This is

still, regardless of these loopholes that you're closing,

it's still a big blowhole in the deficit and that is not what

the model was in '86 for instance when Reagan did it. This

model that I'm speaking of still assumes that this could be a

drag on economic growth because you're not doing the type of

spending cuts, not just simplification in the code, but

spending cuts.

Brady: Here, one, there are a number of models on growth

and I'm sure there will be a healthy debate, that's a good

thing. What we know is this dramatically grows the economy in

revenues not just here in Washington, but state and local

levels as well. But you make a great point: tax reform alone,

alone won't get us to a balanced budget, we have to have

spending constraints along with that. As I know, as House

Republicans, we are turning toward welfare reform and how we

tackle our entitlements in a way to save them. That's all

part of the steps it takes to get us back to a fiscally

responsible area. But I do know this, is you want to see

continued deficits and debts, just stay with a slow growth

economy like we saw the last ten years. We know what that

produced.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from AARP, who is in opposition to this bill.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, which details out the other shoe to fall in this legislation.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Democratic Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for

information about the effects of legislation that would raise

deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027

period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or

cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO; Public Law 111-

139).

The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during

a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated

deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is

required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report

the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in

estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and

ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in

the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to

eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a

sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the

necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB.

CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that

would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year

window, without enacting any further legislation to offset

that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would

record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard,

showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150

billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of

the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current

balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a

positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the

balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion

debit.)

Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset

that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's

impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate

the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to

issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the

session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by

the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law

limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or

roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111

billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory

accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large

accounts including low-income programs and social security,

the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is,

in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion,

significantly less than the amount that would be required to

be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to

automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the

Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https:// go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.)

Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the

estimated amount of available resources in each year over the

next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB

would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay

reductions required by the PAYGO law.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Keith Hall,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by preempting

our distinguished chairman and, for the Record, state that a middle class family in the State of Connecticut, from West Hartford, with a combined income of $125,000, with a mortgage and a kid in college, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and to the Department of Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, will see a tax increase of $767 next year.

Then with the clever clawback provision--that Grover Norquist kind of clawback provision that gives with one hand and takes away with the other--in 2023, that hardworking family in the middle class will see a $1,667 increase.

So why are we here?

It is pretty easy to figure out this. These are honorable people, but sometimes they are called upon to do a political task, or as Mr. Collins put it: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't ever call me again.''

Speaking of New York, my colleagues in New York and New Jersey, because we are donor States and because we make itemized deductions, we find ourselves in the situation where we are paying double taxation.

Don't take our word for it. Just ask a member of your own caucus. Ask Peter King, who describes this as the most massive redistribution of wealth at the expense of teachers, machinists, and people who are of the professional class whom you have found that you want to tax their success.

But what adds insult to injury above all else, aside from being a donor State and double taxation, is the cruelest cut. We take a Pledge of Allegiance. We pledge allegiance to the Constitution. But some of you pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist. In doing so, you want to make sure that you can shrink Social Security and Medicare up so small you can drown it in the bathtub.

That is what this does: $25 billion will come out of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a great leader on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the son of a preacher man, who always speaks truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee who understands the impact of double taxation from a donor State.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: one from the National Education Association and one from the American Council on Education.

November 15, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members

of the National Education Association (NEA), and the 50

million

students they serve, we urge you to Vote No on the Tax Cuts

and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), a rewrite of the U.S. tax code being

voted on this week. This multi-trillion dollar plan is a tax

giveaway to the wealthiest and corporations paid for on the

backs of working families and students, and jeopardizes the

ability of states and local communities to adequately fund

public schools. Votes associated with this issue may be

included in NEA's Legislative Report Card for the 115th

Congress.

Tax plans reveal the priorities of a nation and in a number

of respects this one tells working and middle-class families,

students, and educators that they must sacrifice in order to

further enrich the wealthy and corporations. We oppose the

bill as currently crafted for several reasons outlined below.

A Giveaway to the Wealthy and Corporations sets up Drastic Cuts to

Medicaid, Medicare, and Education

Analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of

H.R. 1's impact shows that the bill is overwhelmingly skewed

to the wealthy. Households with annual incomes over $1

million would receive 16 times the percentage increase in

after-tax income as other taxpayers. In addition, 45 percent

of the cost of the bill's tax cuts would go to households

with incomes above $500,000--less than one percent of filers.

Meanwhile, JCT estimates show that taxes would actually

increase for filers with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000

over the life of the bill.

For now, much of the tax cuts will be deficit-financed, but

the budget resolution that helped pave the way for this plan

previews the next phase: future legislation to cut the

growing deficit caused by tax cuts by demanding cuts to

critical services that help working people, children,

seniors, and others--Medicaid, Medicare, education, and more.

In fact, some of this impact will be immediate. According to

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), without enacting

subsequent legislation, the tax bill will trigger automatic

spending cuts to pay for the tax changes under a ``paygo''

law. The CBO analysis concludes that Medicare would face an

FY18 reduction of $25 billion with a remaining $111 billion

to be sequestered from remaining mandatory programs.

Kansas provides a window into what this approach looks

like. In 2012, the state's former governor pushed through

similar massive tax cuts to individuals and businesses that

allegedly would boost the economy. In reality, Kansas' job

growth was anemic and the governor and legislature starved

state services. Kansas cut funding for public schools,

infrastructure, and other services, and scrambled to close a

$350-million budget deficit. After voters spoke at the ballot

box, lawmakers reversed course, raising taxes and

overriding--in a bipartisan manner--the governor's veto.

Rather than rushing forward with a partisan bill, Congress

would do well to heed the recent lesson from America's

heartland.

Eliminating SALT Deduction is a Tax Increase and Will Devastate

Education Funding

H.R. 1 would eliminate most of the state and local tax

deduction (SALT)--taking money out of the pockets of as many

44 million middle-class families across the nation. While the

bill hammers middle-class families on this, it oddly

preserves the ability of businesses to deduct state and local

taxes--yet another example of how the bill takes from working

families to provide tax giveaways to those who are wealthier.

Eliminating any part of the state and local tax deduction

could lead to a tax increase on middle class families and

have a negative, ripple effect on the ability of states and

local communities to fund public services, like education.

That could translate into cuts to public schools, lost jobs

to educators, and overcrowded classrooms that deprive

students of one-on-one attention.

NEA conducted a detailed analysis of the plan to eliminate

most of SALT. In total, education funding could take a $250

billion cut over the next 10 years and put up to 250,000

education jobs at risk. It is no secret what is likely to

follow if Congress eliminates SALT. If there is any doubt,

one need only to listen to what far-right groups like ALEC

are saying right now. Their letter about the SALT deduction

lays out their plan--to lobby for lower taxes at the state

and local level. This means even fewer available funds for

students and public education.

Turning Popular 529 College Savings Plan into a Voucher-like scheme for

the Wealthy

The tax plan distorts a popular education tax program for

middle-class families by creating a voucher scheme with no

income limits that is aimed at benefitting the wealthy to set

aside up to $10,000 annually in a tax-free account for

private school expenses. Both the Heritage Foundation and

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos agree, noting to the

Washington Post that the backdoor voucher plan is ``. . . a

good step forward . . .'' in allowing public dollars to

follow children to private school. Make no mistake. This

poorly veiled voucher program will only benefit the

wealthiest families who can already afford private school

tuition at the expense of our students, communities, and

taxpayers. In the end, no matter what form or name a voucher

program takes, the impact is the same. This risky voucher

program will hurt students and neighborhood schools--where 90

percent of children attend.

Elimination of the modest Educator Tax Deduction

While offering huge giveaways for wealthy individuals and

corporations, the plan inexplicably eliminates the popular

educator tax deduction that allows educators to deduct

eligible unreimbursed out-of-pocket classroom spending--

books, paper, pencils, and art supplies purchased to

supplement meager school budgets--up to $250 annually. The

popular plan made ``permanent'' by Congress just two years

ago, was claimed on 3.7 million tax returns in 2015. Almost

every educator pays out of pocket for school supplies. The

most recent study by the National School Supplies and

Equipment Association (NSSEA) estimated that public school

educators spent $1.6 billion of their own money during the

2012-2013 school year on classroom supplies. An estimated 99

percent of public school teachers spent some amount of money

out of pocket for their classrooms, with typical amounts

ranging from $500-$1,000.

Making College Even More Costly for Families

The plan also eliminates the student loan interest

deduction. This is bad news for students and families. Under

current rules, borrowers paying off education loans can

annually deduct up to $2,500 of interest paid on student

loans. H.R. 1 essentially raises the long-term cost of

attending college by eliminating the deductions for interest

paid on student loans. According to the IRS, over 12 million

individuals claimed this deduction in 2015. Further, the bill

eliminates a provision that allows universities to waive

tuition for graduate students. Graduate students would be

taxed on the value of that tuition as if it were income,

making it almost impossible for many students to afford

graduate degrees. In a time of rising college costs and

skyrocketing student loan debt, it is unthinkable to take

away provisions that assists students and families struggling

to pay for college.

Eliminating Successful School Construction Bonds Program

The Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) Program has proven

to be an efficient and cost-effective way to help

disadvantaged communities address pressing renovation and

repair needs in schools. Investors receive a federal tax

credit equal to the amount of interest payable on the bonds,

thereby relieving local taxpayers and municipalities of the

interest burden. A school that is awarded a QZAB may use the

funds to renovate and repair buildings, invest in equipment,

and update technology which are all vital to student well-

being and success. Eliminating this program will only ensure

that more and more students will go to school in yesterday's

buildings with out-of-date technology and often unsafe,

crumbling infrastructures.

Putting State and Local Public Pensions Funding at Risk

Section 5001 of H.R. 1 could subject certain investment of

state and local government pension plans to the unrelated

business income tax (UBIT). Investment earnings pay for

approximately two-thirds of state and local government

pension benefits, which are taxed when distributed to

participants. In addition to the revenue lost from the tax

itself, subjecting these pension plans to UBIT could pose

significant and complex compliance costs that could

dramatically affect pension funds. Further, the UBIT will

result in a drag on these critically important investment

returns, sets a dangerous precedent for taxation of state

entities, and will ultimately increase costs to taxpayers.

Rewriting the Tax Code Should Not be Rushed

In 1986, Congress undertook a yearlong, bipartisan effort

to deliberately and carefully rewrite the tax code. Measured

consideration should again be taken in understanding the

near-term and long-term impacts a tax code rewrite will have

on families, communities, and public services. Instead,

Congressional leadership is rushing the process and putting

forward a bill that further tilts the scale in favor of the

wealthy and corporations, and paid for by working families.

For all of the reasons outlined above, we urge you to Vote No

on H.R. 1.

Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,

National Education Association.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is a dangerous bill that raises taxes on 36 million middle class households; takes healthcare from tens of millions of Americans; skyrockets the cost of health insurance for all Americans, but especially for those who are sick or have preexisting conditions; and directly results in cuts to Medicare and safety net spending next year--all to give corporate special interests immediate, permanent, and monumental tax cuts.

Cut, cut, cut is all that I have heard this week: cut the safety net; cut service for the needy; cut service for the physically challenged; cut the poor; cut the homeless; cut Medicaid; cut education; cut out low-income tax credits; cut out new market tax credits; cut out social services; cut block grants; cut student loans.

Winter is here. Cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. If you live in Chicago, Minneapolis, the Midwest, or the Northeast, without any heat, you are subject to catch pneumonia and die. There is no doubt about it.

I can imagine that college residents, hospital administrators, and managers of programs are wringing their hands, wondering what they are going to do.

I heard a minister last Sunday at one of the churches in my community asking this, and he said: Pray, organize, vote.

Vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 17 environmental organizations opposing this legislation.

November 8, 2017.

Dear Representative, on behalf of our millions of members

and activists, we write to urge you to oppose the Republican

leadership's tax legislation, the misnamed Tax Cuts and Jobs

Act (H.R. 1). This plan would lavish huge and permanent tax

cuts to the richest 1% and corporate polluters that are

destined to be paid for by the health and environmental well-

being of communities across the country. The bill's debt-

busting tax cuts for the wealthiest are sure to mean deep

cuts to federal and state programs and safeguards that

protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife that benefit

people across this country every day. The plan puts at risk

our clean energy future by preserving tax breaks for dirty

energy sources while slashing them for cleaner forms of

energy. And if the tax plan itself weren't harmful enough, it

is also being packaged in the Senate with unrelated,

controversial legislation that hands over the pristine and

sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploitation by Big

Oil.

This plan steers most of its tax breaks to the wealthiest

people in this country and corporations and adds at least

$1.5 trillion to the deficit. Americans across the country

will suffer because those tax cuts are likely to be paid for

by slashing services and safeguards that our government

provides, from healthcare to education to environmental

protection. The health of communities across the nation will

suffer if the Environmental Protection Agency is further

hampered in its mission to protect public health and hold

polluters accountable for violating laws like the Clean Air

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The people who work in and

benefit from America's thriving outdoor recreational economy

will take a hit if the national parks and other lands

stewarded by the Department of the Interior are forced to

suffer further cuts because of this reckless tax plan.

This tax plan also steers our nation's energy policy in the

wrong direction by leaving in place the vast majority of

existing tax preferences for polluting industries like oil,

gas, coal and nuclear and reducing, phasing-out, and

eliminating incentives for cleaner sources of energy.

Permanent tax breaks for fossil fuels dwarf those for

renewables by a margin of 7:1, yet this bill would suddenly

eliminate the tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle,

disrupt the wind industry by reducing the credit for future

projects by a third and placing into jeopardy the eligibility

of existing projects, and eliminate the commercial solar

investment credit. While some clean energy technology credits

are reintroduced, they, too, are set to phase out. Meanwhile,

oil companies will receive a new billion dollar hand out

while only the smallest of existing preferences for fossil

fuels are eliminated--leaving more than $14 billion in

permanent annual federal subsidies untouched. Despite

rhetoric from GOP leaders that the tax code shouldn't pick

winners and losers, this bill very clearly picks polluting

energy sectors as winners yet again, putting at risk the

impressive growth of clean energy and robbing us and our

children of a cleaner future.

The GOP leadership's plan is to package this tax

legislation in the Senate with unrelated, controversial

legislation that would open up the iconic Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This legislation would

irreversibly damage one of America's greatest wild places and

is only being included in a desperate attempt to secure

enough votes in the Senate for tax cuts for corporations and

the wealthiest Americans. The Arctic Refuge's spectacular

landscape of rugged mountains, boreal forests, and wild

rivers supports more than 250 species including polar and

brown bears, musk oxen, and birds that migrate from all 50

states and 6 continents each year. The indigenous Gwich'in

people call the refuge's coastal plain ``The Sacred Place

Where Life Begins,'' an area that serves as the calving

grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd which they rely on as

a primary source of food, and for cultural and spiritual

needs. This provision is being included in an attempt to

generate $1 billion in government revenue to pay for the

package's tax cuts for the wealthy, but multiple analyses

show that it is unlikely to raise anywhere close to that

amount. In short, including drilling in the Arctic Refuge in

the tax legislation is both environmentally and fiscally

irresponsible.

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and instead

work together on legislation that will truly benefit our

communities, power our economy with clean, renewable energy,

and protect the environment that we all depend upon for our

health and well-being.

Sincerely,

350.org, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological

Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice,

Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace,

Hip Hop Caucus, League of Conservation Voters, Natural

Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International,

Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society,

Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for Progress.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is going to be on Capitol Hill rallying Republicans to vote for his tax bill perfectly designed for his benefit: eliminating the alternative minimum tax, one of the few ways he pays any tax at all; abolishing the inheritance tax, allowing him to pass on tax-free hundreds of millions of dollars to his family; and expanding access to the lower passthrough tax rates for many large and profitable businesses. Donald Trump lists hundreds of passthrough entities on his financial forms.

Donald Trump is the king of debt, and this monstrosity of a tax bill is fueled by increasing the national debt $2.3 trillion and cutting taxes for the wealthy financed by increased debt burden on our children and grandchildren.

Of course, details are starting to leak out, such as special deals for baseball teams. Breaking a bipartisan commitment to the wind energy industry is already causing their stock prices to fall, jeopardizing billions of dollars of projects and putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk with the only retroactive provision in the bill breaking a bipartisan commitment that many of us worked on with the energy industry.

The Republican proposal showers riches on the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations who are not going to create jobs and raise wages. What they are going to do is buy things and make more money. What is going to happen is that, in the years ahead, taxes are going to rise for millions of Americans and even more in the future.

Now, this tax perhaps has the most cruel element--what I call the Alzheimer's tax--repealing the medical expense deduction used by over 9 million middle class Americans who saved almost $90 billion in 2015-- gone.

This stunning action places additional burdens on many elderly and vulnerable middle-income Americans trying to plan ahead for the crushing financial burden dealing with Alzheimer's. We never had a hearing on anything like this. It wouldn't stand the light of day. The American public will be cranky about this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, but, most importantly, it is a missed opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking the proposal of the Republican Party today and the financial architecture of our revenue system, based on their request, to the casino.

Their argument is premised on one thing today, and one thing only. Maybe. But what about maybe not?

This could have been done between the two parties, as we requested and wanted to do.

In 1986, 450 witnesses offered testimony on tax reform, thirty hearings were held, and the Secretary of the Treasury attended most of them. The two parties found commonality in reaching an accord that was well received by the American people.

What we are being asked to do here today is to raise taxes on 36 million middle class Americans. The previous speaker, my friend from California, a quarter of the households in his district claim the State and local tax deduction, with an average of $10,000 per family. $10,000. So they are going to tell you today that they are giving you this and they are giving you that.

Take a look at the distribution tables. That is the most certain opportunity for people to examine precisely what is in this legislation.

A gentleman earlier this morning was heralding Alzheimer's month. They give Alzheimer's a tax during Alzheimer's month. For those who stay together with loved ones for as long as they can, they need that deduction that is so important to keeping that family together.

This is the same old, same old. In 2001, tax cuts of $1.3 trillion all premised on maybe we will have economic growth.

Remember the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves?

Well, they, today, call it dynamic scoring. Now we are being asked again to premise the argument on maybe there will be enough growth to generate some return on revenue.

In 2003, another $1.3 trillion in terms of a tax cut was offered with no or slow economic growth.

And the granddaddy of them all, in 2005, how about repatriation?

Foreign earnings were brought back at 5\1/4\ percent, all based upon the idea that there was going to be widespread broad-based hiring.

What did we discover in the aftermath of that?

Almost 20,000 layoffs in the weeks after it. The money was used for stock buybacks and dividends with no employment gains across the country.

They keep telling us: Well, you are going to get 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, and the President says 6 percent growth.

I want to find that economist who says we are going to get 6 percent growth.

Most projections are that we are being asked here today to participate in the following, because this is the context of the argument this morning: They are borrowing $2.3 trillion over 10 years for the purpose of giving a tax cut to people at the very top of our economic system.

We should be investing in human capital, community colleges, vocational education, internship programs, and aligning the American people with the skill sets that are necessary, as the Department of Labor reported this week, for the 6 million jobs that are available. That is the most gainful way to do long-term investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has a long and distinguished history in this Congress and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has the highest professional and personal esteem of every Member of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, under the Republican tax bill, 570,000 Michigan households earning less than $160,000 a year will see a tax hike.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee, whose admonitions to all of us should be something we could all rally around.

Mr. Speaker, 22,000 constituents of the gentleman from Miami's district will eventually face the Alzheimer's tax increase that is included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is a neighbor, a really nice guy, and a very thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is one of the most thoughtful Members of Congress, a leader in the field of renewable energy, and my friend

Mr. Speaker, 17,000 people in Mr. Hensarling's district will now pay higher interest on their student loan deductions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a great advocate for the heartland of America.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of the gentleman's constituents claim the State and local tax deduction, totalling $11,684 per family.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great friend to all of us here in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), whose knowledge of new markets tax credits is second to none in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), one of the most knowledgeable members of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a very successful businesswomen in her own right, who understands the modern economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have Mr. Kelly--as he describes sports teams, we discovered he is a closet Patriots fan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), whose history, in terms of revenue and revenue collection, is well known to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a Marshall Scholar and attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and one of the most knowledgeable Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a very thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.