Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, it is budget day. I don't know if you were as excited about that when you got out of bed this morning as I was, but, to be fair, I sit on the Budget Committee.

I have the great honor of serving on the Rules Committee, and that is why I have the great honor of bringing this rule to the floor today. But I serve on the Rules Committee by night. By day, I serve on the Budget Committee with my friend Mr. Pascrell and others, and we have been working since January to produce a budget for the United States of America.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we produced a whale of a budget coming out of the House Rules Committee. You remember that budget, you supported that budget. We did a fantastic collaborative job bringing that budget to the floor, and then it went to the United States Senate.

Now, you know how this happens, Mr. Speaker. We all grew up watching, ``I am just a bill sitting here on Capitol Hill. Well, it is a long, long journey to the capital city, it is a long, long wait while I am sitting in committee.'' We all know the song from our childhood.

It is a long process to move a bill through, and nine times out of ten, it comes back differently from the United States Senate than the way we sent it over there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today by concurring with the Senate amendment, and if we pass this rule, that is what we will have an opportunity to do. If we pass this rule, we will have an opportunity to have the debate, concur in the Senate amendment, and bring a unified budget to the floor.

Now, what does that mean, Mr. Speaker?

We have already been working on appropriations bills this cycle, and for the uninitiated, that is the bulk of the Federal spending that goes on. All of the mandatory spending that you and I both know about, Mr. Speaker, Medicare, Social Security, those important income support programs on which so many Americans depend, that money is already going out the door.

So today what we have an opportunity to do in passing this budget is to create what they call reconciliation instructions, because contained inside this unified budget of which the House and the Senate agree are reconciliation instructions that allow us to bring what I believe will be the most comprehensive, fundamental reform of our Tax Code since Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did it in 1986.

Since 1986, 4 decades ago, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something that no other Congress has been able to do since I have been an adult, and I am excited about that opportunity.

Now, to be fair, we are going to have a lot of disagreement about how to get that done. That is not the debate we are having today. For any of my colleagues or anybody back home, Mr. Speaker, who is worried that right here in this debate on a Wednesday, we are going to sort out our entire Tax Code, fear not, fear not. That is not the debate we are having today.

The debate we are having today, Mr. Speaker, is will we or will we not take on the challenge of reforming our Tax Code. I believe that we will.

The debate that we are going to have today is will we or will we not confront the fact that America has one of the least competitive tax codes in the world, but Americans deserve one of the most competitive tax codes in the world.

The debate we are going to have today, Mr. Speaker, is not about the details of tax reform, but about the premise of can we do better for the American people or can we not.

I have the great benefit, Mr. Speaker, of not having to learn what I know about this Chamber from watching it on TV or reading it in the headlines. I consider myself very blessed to have the opportunity to serve among these men and women. If I just had to read about them in the headlines, I would have a very low opinion of them. I confess, I would have a low opinion. But because I get to work with these men and women, Mr. Speaker, I get to see the real commitment to their constituencies, the real commitment to their home States, the real desire to deliver on behalf of their constituencies and on behalf of the United States of America.

We may have a divisive debate today. We sometimes do. But my prediction here in hour one, Mr. Speaker, is that by the time we leave this floor, we are going to have an agreement to take on one of the challenges that no party has been able to take on since Democrats and Republicans came together in 1986 to get it done.

It is my great hope that we will use that model, that we will repeat that model, that we will improve upon that model, and that we will produce something that all of our constituency can be proud of. I know that America is hungry for tax reform, and I believe we can deliver it for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying concurrence in the Senate amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to mention at the beginning that we might be debating the details of the tax reform plan that does not exist today. I see that we are, in fact, going to do that.

There are a lot of studies out there on this tax reform plan that does not yet exist, but let me tell you that we can all agree that we have the single least-competitive Tax Code on the planet today. We can all agree that with the click of a mouse, a company can transfer its assets overseas and grow jobs there instead of growing jobs here.

Let us have the debate that we want to have about who should bear the burden of American taxation. That is a legitimate debate and we should have it. But let us not have the debate about whether foreign workers should benefit or American workers should benefit from American capital, because that answer should be clear in the hearts and minds of every single Member of this Chamber.

We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to go from worst to first. Now, I confess that I don't actually expect to get all the way to first. I will settle for getting up in the top five and getting out of the bottom five when it comes to being able to lead in this country. But I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, what I think is a source of frustration of constituencies on both sides of the aisle, and that is the us- against-them conversation that goes on day in and day out.

I looked at the chart my friend from Massachusetts brought down to the House floor. It happened to be in university colors of Georgia's red and black, but I can see that as a representative of all the hardworking families in my district, that chart didn't do anything to inspire me about the impact of tax reform going forward.

My friend quoted the Tax Policy Center. Now, The Wall Street Journal called the Tax Policy Center a shill for those groups that don't want to see any tax reform of any kind, but that is currently. The Tax Policy Center has been doing research for a long time. The research my friend from Massachusetts quoted was a study of a bill that does not yet exist. The research I am going to quote is of historical tax rates in this country.

What my friends at the Tax Policy Center said is that about 30 percent of Americans--one-third of Americans--pay no income taxes today; that the Tax Code, as it exists today, protects them from any tax liability at all.

Now, what we are proposing when we get into fundamental tax reform, Mr. Speaker, is to double the standard deduction. For those families that are already claiming the standard deduction, we are talking about doubling it. Now, the brackets are still in question, the details are still in question, but we are talking about doubling the number of folks who don't have to deal with the IRS at all.

Today, about 30 percent of American families don't pay any income taxes,

and that same 30 percent gets a refundable tax credit that rebates to them their entire Social Security and Medicare contribution that they make and the entire Social Security and welfare contribution that their employer makes on their behalf.

Now, these are not my numbers; these are the Tax Policy Center's numbers, that a full third of Americans aren't paying one penny in Federal income tax or Federal payroll tax of any kind.

Now, I am not here to debate the wisdom of that, Mr. Speaker. I am here to tell you that I don't know how much lower I can cut taxes in that group. I don't know how in the world I can lower the tax burden on folks who are not only paying no income taxes, but are having all of their payroll taxes rebated to them also.

Is this a group we should talk about, Mr. Speaker? Should we talk about folks who are grabbing onto the bottom rung of the economic ladder and struggling to climb to the top?

We should, and we do.

Should we talk about how it is that the entitlement system, the benefit system in this country, is trapping people at the bottom of the ladder and not allowing them to climb to the top?

We should.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be misleading to the American public to suggest that this tax bill is focusing its attention in one direction instead of another direction. The fact simply is that I can't lower taxes any more at the bottom of the spectrum.

We are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. That doesn't inspire many people. I have that conversation regularly: Rob, what in the world are you doing lowering taxes on corporations?

I support the FairTax, and in the spirit of folks who are not particularly enthusiastic about tax reform, I am not in that camp. I am enthusiastic about tax reform. I just thought there was a better way. I couldn't get the votes to have my better way done.

My better way is the FairTax, and what I would say to you is corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect taxes from their consumers in the form of higher prices, from their employees in the form of lower wages, or from their shareholders in the form of lower capital--lower capital returns.

Now, lest you think: Rob, you are just a conservative Republican from the Deep South. What do you know about this?

I will again quote the Tax Policy Center, which says that a full 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden falls on workers. Fair enough. If we want to argue about where the tax rates are going to end up and how the cuts are going to look and what the policies are going to be, let's have that debate.

Let us not mislead the American people into believing there is a free lunch anywhere in this Tax Code. We have an opportunity to move from worst to first, and every single American, regardless of their region, regardless of their politics, is going to benefit from that change. They benefited from it when Democrats and Republicans came together to do it in 1986, and they will benefit from it when we come together and get it done today, as I believe that we will. We must.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if you have wondered what kind of passion we have on the Budget Committee, I will just once again recognize how much I enjoy serving with my friend from New Jersey on

the Budget Committee. Everything you just heard from him was from the heart. I get to hear it in committee day in and day out, and I will tell you, we end up with a better product as a result of that. It is a legitimate debate to have about the State and local tax deduction. It is perfectly legitimate.

There are those from low-tax jurisdictions that ask: Why would the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayer want to subsidize those States that are higher-tax jurisdictions? There are those jurisdictions that are low-tax jurisdictions.

Because the gentleman's constituency in New Jersey makes so much money, they pay so much more in Federal income taxes. And States like mine in Georgia, States like Alabama, States like Mississippi are the beneficiary of those dollars as the Federal Government distributes them. Undeniably, there is a case to be made on both sides of this issue.

The falsehood, Mr. Speaker, is to suggest that we are deciding that issue today. We are not. We are not.

I don't blame any of my colleagues for fighting for their constituency at the height of their ability, at the highest vocal point of their capability, because issues are, at their core, local and personal to each and every one of us.

We are going to have to have this conversation and we are going to have to sort it out, and I believe it is not going to be a partisan conversation. In fact, I know it is not going to be a partisan conversation.

I know Republicans who share my friend from New Jersey's opinion, and I know Democrats who share Shelley Moore Capito's opinion on the Senate side. We know this to be true. We are going to sort this issue out, Mr. Speaker.

What I fear, though, is that emotions are going to run so high that we are going to miss an opportunity to figure these things out. For example, to conflate personal deductions with business deductions is to create confusion where there needn't be any.

Every business in America can deduct the meals that they serve throughout their day as a business expense. I will share with the gentleman that my family cannot deduct our meals from our income taxes.

Every business out there that has rented an apartment somewhere in order to conduct business, they can deduct that rent from their income taxes as a business expense. I will share with my friend, in the great State of Georgia, I am unable to deduct my rent as a business expense from my income tax.

There is just a fundamental difference between families and businesses, and that fundamental difference goes back to what I said at the very beginning, and that is there is only one taxpayer in this country. It is not Walmart, it is not Apple, it is not Microsoft. It is the American consumer. We are the only ones. At the end of the day, the buck stops with each and every American family.

The debate over how to structure a corporate income Tax Code, Mr. Speaker, is perfectly legitimate. To suggest that the fact that the personal code and the business code look different and that is somehow nefarious is to deny what is just now over 100 years of income tax policy in this country.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time from my friend, Mr. Speaker, what you hear is absolutely right. I want to make that clear. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion; they are not entitled to their own facts. The words my friend is reading are absolutely accurate. What they are not are absolutely binding. That is what they are not.

What this is is such a personal and important issue to folks on both sides of it that it got its own personal line out of the United States Senate.

I can't even get nominations out of the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker. I am sitting here trying to staff out region four down in the great State of Georgia. Folks are delaying debate. Folks won't let me get my people in place.

This is so important to the United States Senate that it came with its own line.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to diminish the importance of this issue on either side. What I do want to insist upon, though, is that it will not be decided during this hour today; and I want to insist, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be decided on partisan lines.

I would just ask of you, Mr. Speaker, and of my friends here on the floor, we have two things we can do with our voices: we can either sow consensus, or we can sow discontent.

I know that we are passionate about these things in which we believe, but to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to come together and sort it out and do the very best we can for Americans is to sell this institution short and is to further the misunderstanding, the misimpression, the misinformation that the media sends out about us every day. I know we are better than that, and I am proud to be a voice saying that here on the floor today, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard a lot about the distributional analysis of tax reform, and, as I have suggested, it is hard to do. Folks who make a whole lot of money, like my friend from New Jersey's constituency, they pay a whole lot more in taxes. I hope that one day my constituency makes as much money as my friend from New Jersey's constituency, and if we can stimulate the economy the way that I believe that this tax proposal will, we are going to have a shot at getting that done.

But we have to have these conversations about limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans if we are going to solve the issues that my friends have raised. And reading right out of that Senate budget report, the whole purpose of considering the State and local tax deduction and considering modifying it, capping it, eliminating it, whatever you want to insert there, Mr. Speaker, is designed around limiting those tax deductions that only benefit the wealthiest among us--that only benefit the wealthiest among us. That is the conversation that folks are trying to have.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there is so much more that we agree on than that we disagree on in this Chamber. But it appears, time and time again, we come to the House floor and focus, in the most shrill voices, on the 20 percent of those things that divide us instead of the 80 percent of those things that we could come together and deliver on for our constituency.

Tax reform doesn't have to pass with 51 votes in the Senate. We move reconciliation bills through the Senate with 60 votes. We have moved them through the Senate with 70 votes. We have moved them through the Senate with 80 votes.

Growing the American economy, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense goal that is shared in every single region and in every single political quarter. Let's not make this about us here. Let's make this about our bosses back home. We can, and we should, and I believe that we will.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to agree with some of what my friend had to say.

There will be absolutely no family that goes untouched. If you would like to go to the Council of Economic Advisers web page, Mr. Speaker, you can see their most recent report, which suggests, on average, $4,000 in additional wages for every wage earner in this country, every family in this country, making a difference for economic growth.

We all know that economic growth matters. More jobs mean more pressure on labor. More pressure on labor means higher wages. Higher wages mean more income for the Federal Government in taxes and more income for families to put into their pocket.

We are hearing about zombies and surprises and tricks. You can tell that Halloween is right around the corner, and scaring folks is kind of the tagline of Halloween, Mr. Speaker; and, sadly, that is what we see going on here today.

I promise you, you have not heard a single bipartisan word about this tax plan from my friends on the other side, so I am going to provide those words for my friends. I will read from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Speaker: ``In 2012, President Obama and his advisers proposed lowering the corporate tax rate because it `creates good jobs and good wages for the middle class folks who work at those businesses.' ''

We can argue about what the tax reform ought to look like. What we can't argue about is the benefit for American families of tax reform.

In 2013, Lawrence Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and

Chairman of President Obama's Economic Council, argued that the tax on corporate profit creates a burden without commensurate revenues for the government, and that changing it is as close to a free lunch for the American taxpayer as reformers will ever get. That was President Obama's Treasury Secretary.

Again, we can argue about what it looks like. What we can't argue about is what it is intended to do and what leading experts believe it will do. In 2015, Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republican Rob Portman cosponsored a Senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which is the highest of the 35 countries in the OECD today.

As Chuck Schumer says: ``Our international tax system creates incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas, rather than creating jobs and economic growth here in the United States.'' We can fix that together, and we will fix that together.

Bill Clinton, in 2016, said he regretted raising the corporate tax rate to its current level for exactly those reasons.

Who is advantaged by trying to persuade the American people that something nefarious is going on here? Who is advantaged by that? I don't know about my friend's constituencies, Mr. Speaker, but my constituency wants to believe we are making things work together. My constituency wants to believe in rolling up our sleeves and sorting things out together. My constituency wants to believe that we are united in making a difference for them together.

We have this opportunity. If we pass this rule and we concur in the underlying Senate amendment, we will move forward on tax reform that will leave no American family behind.

The best government program we have in this country is the program that allows jobs to develop so folks can have one. The best program we have in this country, Mr. Speaker, is one that allows wages to rise so that folks can earn more. My constituency is not looking for anything from the other side of the aisle except cooperation on freeing up the marketplace so that my constituency can go to work, so that folks can go and make their own pathway and future forward. We can do it in ways we haven't done together since 1986, Mr. Speaker.

Who is advantaged by convincing folks that cooperation, consensus, making a different together is dead? I don't believe anyone. In fact, I would tell you that not just the debate but the body politic is damaged by those concerns, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will join together and refute those. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I actually want to associate myself to my friend from Wisconsin's comments. I can't disagree with a word he said right up until it got to the end where he said to vote against the budget. Right up until there, we were on the same page.

There is so much that we could do together. My friend spoke out on behalf of small businesses and family farmers. As the Tax Code exists today, when you see my friends put up charts about tax benefits going to the top 1 percent, they are talking about those small business and family farmers. They are talking about that small business in my district that has plowed every single penny back into the business-- back into the business for new technology to make their employees more productive, back into the business to open up a new facility, back into the business to add more distribution, because they have got 350 families who depend on them to make that business successful so that those 350 families can put food on their table.

But when the Tax Code is analyzed, Mr. Speaker, when the IRS sends back the statistics, that small business in my district that sends every single penny back into the business, they look rich. They look like they are the wealthiest, and they are not. They are those small family farmers. They are those small family businesses that are trying to make a difference.

I want to say, because my friend from Wisconsin had a very significant concern about blowing holes in deficits, Mr. Speaker, as you know from your experience, one cannot pass tax reform that is permanent through reconciliation if it adds to deficits in the out years. That is what is so wonderful about this process, Mr. Speaker. I support what my friend from Wisconsin said about keeping an eye on deficits. I

support what my friend said about making sure Medicare and Social Security are growing, which they do when people go back to work and when folks earn more money.

I don't want to be in the business of lecturing my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I want to be in the business of working with my colleagues. But folks have a choice when they show up to work every day. Are we going to make this a day about arguing with one another? Are we going to tear something down today? Are we going to build something up today? I stand for building something today, Mr. Speaker. Unabashedly, let's build something together today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say I don't want to sneak anything past anybody. I want to claim full and total credit for what we are about to do together. I don't want anybody to be confused about whose fault it is. It is my fault.

When we get tax reform and get this economy growing again, blame me. When we can see wages rising in this country again, blame me. When we have an opportunity to go from worst to first in the international business community, blame me.

I don't want anybody to believe there is anybody hiding here, Mr. Speaker.

I share with my friend from Massachusetts that I do not have any speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close when he is. Truth needs no defense, I would say to my friend.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wish I could bring school groups down here onto the House floor just to help the next generation understand why we face some of the challenges that we face. We are down here today confronted with a tax bill that folks are certain is going to give away everything to everybody whom they don't want it to go to, and we are down here confronted with the fact that there is

no tax bill whatsoever to look at and it is going to get sprung on folks with absolutely no notice and no ability to read it.

Now, either one of those things could be true. It happens to be that neither of those things is true. But how in the world do folks listening to this debate think that we are advancing the cause of reform?

Deficits do matter, to my friend's point. They do matter, and the stranglehold that the Obama regulatory economy created here in America on economic growth reduced economic GDP growth by a full one-third--by a full one-third.

For every 0.1 percent of GDP growth, we talk about 200 billion additional dollars coming in to the Treasury over the 10-year window. So a full percentage point that we have lost is $2 trillion coming in to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, if we had Bush-era growth instead of Obama-era growth over these last 5 years, the budget would be balanced today. But we are where we are, and the question is: Can we do better tomorrow? We can.

Now, before I talk about that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some of the folks who helped to get us here. My friend from Massachusetts and I come down here and carry the debate, but the work goes on behind every single one of these doors and in every single one of these committee rooms.

I serve on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and our staff director over there, Rick May, has done an amazing job shepherding this process, standing up for the House's work product.

Jenna Spealman, Andy Morton, Tim Flynn, Robert Cogan, Patrick Louis Knudsen, Jim Bates, Mary Popadiuk, Jonathan Romito, and Elise Anderson are all working day and night--and weekends, many times--to get this product to the floor.

Steve Gonzalez, Eric Davis, Robert Yeakel, Ellen Johnson, Emily Goff, Brad Watson, Brittany Madni, and Steve Waskiewicz are folks, Mr. Speaker, who don't come here because they have political passion; they come here because they have policy passion. They want to do those things that matter. They could go anywhere they want to in town and make more money, but they stay here working for the American people because they believe they can make a difference, and they are right.

Mr. Speaker, they are right. They can make a difference. We can make a difference. This rule--this rule--if we pass it today, Mr. Speaker, will allow us to concur in the Senate amendment. Concurring in the Senate amendment does not bind us to the Senate process, but it enables us to move a bill that direction that they can process.

We have seen the holdups in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I am not happy about that. That is just the way Senate process is. We can do better. Reconciliation allows us to do better, and passing this rule enables us to do better.

Vote ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying budget and open yourself up to doing together what has not been done together in 31 years. I don't just believe we can, I believe that we will. I am excited about it, I am proud of it, and I am ready to get to it, Mr. Speaker.

Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. Today, House Republicans are pushing a job-killing budget so they can use fast-track reconciliation procedures to steamroll through their billionaires-first tax plan.

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be the people's House. We ought to have the people's budget, a budget that helps the millions of Americans who sent us here to Congress, not a budget that helps only a few, the well-connected and the well-off.

I disagree with Mr. Woodall. This is not a time to celebrate. This is a terrible budget. This budget will devastate America's investments in good

paying jobs, it threatens growing wages and the bedrock promise of a secure and healthy retirement. It makes cuts across the board that would hurt seniors, children, veterans, and the hardworking people across this country who are already struggling to get by.

Why are Republicans doing this?

Well, it is all in the name of fast-tracking the Ryan-McConnell tax plan, which explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and then provides multitrillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. We Democrats think this is a horrible idea.

What is particularly astonishing is the blatant hypocrisy of Republican leaders pushing this deficit-busting budget. Republicans are always telling us how much they care about the deficit, but when it comes to giving their beloved tax cuts to their billionaire friends, they suddenly develop a convenient case of amnesia. They say: What deficit? Don't worry. These tax breaks will pay for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. In this Republican-controlled Congress, we can now say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer matter. All of the talk by Republicans, well, they didn't really mean it.

If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the floor. This kind of shows what they truly believe, where their values are, where their priorities are.

How many times have Republicans talked about the importance of a balanced budget?

The Speaker called for a deficit-neutral tax plan in his Better Way agenda. Well, I guess this debt-creating budget is the ``Somewhat Less Better Way'' plan.

Your budget chair took to Twitter just 2 weeks ago to chastise Senate Republicans for not pursuing a balanced budget, yet now she is fully in support of their budget, which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with no way to pay for it.

Now, let me spell this out for my Republican friends. This is not a balanced budget. Clearly, Republicans desperately need a refresher on basic arithmetic.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing balanced about hitting middle class families and millions of hardworking Americans with cuts while giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts they simply do not need. Billionaires aren't knocking down our door asking for more tax breaks. This is disgusting. This is shameful.

The Republican budget destroys middle class jobs by stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from investments in infrastructure, job training, advanced energy, and research and development. It devastates Medicare and Medicaid. It demands deep cuts to safety net programs like SNAP. I am talking about food for hungry children and hardworking families. It goes after college affordability. It makes college more expensive for working families. It undercuts key supports for veterans and their families.

What is particularly offensive is that Republicans are using this terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the wealthy as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences and without bipartisan support.

The tax reform framework supported by Republicans in Congress will raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy. Under the Republican plan, the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all tax benefits. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all tax benefits. Give me a break.

Those making more than $900,000 a year would receive an average tax cut of more than $200,000. Think about that. A person working full time in minimum wage makes $290 a week before taxes. And under this plan, people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year, would get a massive tax break. Corporations will receive a tax cut totaling $2 trillion.

Who loses in this plan, Mr. Speaker?

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, one in three middle class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would actually receive a tax increase, and nearly half of middle class families with kids will see their taxes go up.

Can you believe that: raising taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and corporations?

This is insane.

To make matters worse, Republicans are planning to steamroll their tax plan through Congress. We are reading in the press that we might see actual text of their plan next week and maybe a markup and floor consideration a week or two after that.

Really? Don't you think we owe it to our constituents to have thoughtful, open debate on this legislation which will impact every single one of them?

I guess not.

Democrats agree that our tax system needs to be updated, to be more fair, and especially to be more fair to the middle class and to working families. We have always been willing to engage in real bipartisan tax reform, but the Republican tax framework is not tax reform. It is just one more GOP multitrillion-dollar giveaway to the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class and working Americans.

In all my time in Congress, I have never seen a budget and a tax plan that harms so many just to benefit so few. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to vote against this cruel Republican budget, and to oppose a tax plan that puts wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent ahead of hardworking middle class families.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, boy, I don't even know where to begin after that.

My good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, made reference to the Tax Policy Center, and I have the report from the Tax Policy Center here. In fact, it is their analysis that was the basis for that chart that I held during my opening remarks, which said that the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of the tax breaks based on the Republican framework.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record excerpts from the Tax Policy Center report.

[From the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center

Staff, Sept. 29, 2017]

A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework

Abstract

The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of

the potential impact of proposals included in the ``Unified

Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.'' We find they

would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years

and $3.2 trillion over the second decade (not including any

dynamic feedback). In 2018, all income groups would see their

average taxes fall, but some taxpayers in each group would

face tax increases. Those with the very highest incomes would

receive the biggest tax cuts. The tax cuts are smaller as a

percentage of income in 2027, and taxpayers in the 80th to

95th income percentiles would, on average, experience a tax

increase.

The findings and conclusions contained within are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or

policies of the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution or

their funders.

Alternative Ways of Presenting Change in Distribution of Tax Burdens

by expanded cash income percentile

Expanded cash income percentile, Percent change in after-

tax income, Share of total federal tax change (%), Average

federal tax change, Dollars, Percent, Share of federal taxes,

Change (% points), Under the proposal (%).

Panel A: 2018.

Lowest quintile, 0.5, 1.1, -60, -10.4, 0.0, 0.9; Second

quintile, 0.9, 4.1, -290, -9.3, 0.0, 3.8; Middle quintile,

1.2, 8.2, -660, -7.2, 0.2, 10.1; Fourth quintile, 1.2, 11.6,

-1,110, -5.5, 0.6, 18.7; Top quintile, 3.3, 74.5, -8,470,

-9.6, -0.7, 66.5; All, 2.1, 100.0, -1,570, -8.6, 0.0, 100.0.

Addendum.

80-90, 0.8, 5.1, -1,140, -3.1, 0.9, 15.1; 90-95, 0.7, 3.3,

-1,500, -2.6, 0.7, 11.4; 95-99, 2.3, 12.8, -7,620, -6.9, 0.3,

16.4; Top 1 percent, 8.5, 53.3, -129,030, -17.6, -2.6, 23.5;

Top 0.1 percent, 10.2, 30.3, -722,510, -20.4, -1.7, 11.1.

Panel B: 2027.

Lowest quintile, 0.2, 0.8, -50, -5.4, 0.0, 1.0; Second

quintile, 0.5, 3.0, -230, -5.0, 0.1, 4.1; Middle quintile,

0.5, 4.9, -420, -3.4, 0.4, 10.2; Fourth quintile, 0.4, 4.3,

-450, -1.7, 0.9, 17.3; Top quintile, 3.0, 86.6, -10,610,

-8.5, -1.3, 67.4; All, 1.7, 100.0, -1,690, -6.7, 0.0, 100.0.

Addendum.

80-90, -0.4, -3.5, 820, 1.8, 1.2, 14.4; 90-95, -0.3, -1.5,

760, 1.1, 0.8, 10.3; 95-99, 1.8, 11.9, -7,640, -5.3, 0.2,

15.4; Top 1 percent, 8.7, 79.7, -207,060, -17.4, -3.5, 27.2;

Top 0.1 percent, 9.7, 39.6, -1,022,120, -19.0, -1.8, 12.2.

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation

Model (version 0217-1)

The full report can be found at: http:// www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/ 144971/a preliminary analysis of the unified framework 0.pdf

Mr. Speaker, where did I get this figure about adding to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? Did I just make that up?

I will tell the gentleman where I got it from. It is basically the Republican report in the Senate on the budget. Let me read from their report here.

It says: ``This title includes two reconciliation instructions to the Senate committees. The first would allow the Finance Committee to reduce revenues and change outlays to increase the deficit by not more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.''

These are the words of Republicans in the Senate.

The gentleman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan. It is because we are presented here with a budget that essentially fast tracks a tax plan. He is right, we don't have all the details yet because it is being negotiated and written in some back room somewhere in this building. I wish I knew where it was so we could maybe try to find out some more details. But what we do know is the framework that the Republicans have put forward, and that is the basis for the analysis that economist after economist have stated that this budget basically is a giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country, and it is not somehow a break for the middle class. It is the exact opposite.

This is a gift for billionaires and millionaires, and it does nothing for working families. That is why this is all relevant. This budget puts in place procedures for the Republicans to fast track a tax bill that they are now writing in some back room somewhere that nobody will see probably until the last minute, and basically it will be rushed through here, and it is a big giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country. I just wanted to clarify that for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that Republican plans for tax reform would also eliminate the State and local tax deduction, called SALT. This deduction prevents millions of middle class families from being taxed twice on the same income by deducting already-paid State and local taxes from their Federal income tax.

Half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle class families earning a household income of less than $100,000, and local communities will also feel that pain.

Repealing the SALT deduction, which would effectively make State and local taxes more costly for taxpayers, would put pressure on local governments to lower taxes.

The bipartisan National Governors Association said in a September 22 letter that the SALT deduction, ``has contributed to the stability of State revenues that are essential for providing public services.'' These services include healthcare, police and fire departments, and schools.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the National Governors Association.

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2017.

Re Tax Reform (State and Local Tax Deduction and Municipal

Bonds).

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,

Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Neal,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways & Means, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,

Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Hatch, Ranking

Member Wyden, Chairman Brady, and Ranking Member Neal: The

nation's governors appreciate congressional efforts to reform

and improve federal tax policy. Federal and state tax systems

are complex and often interconnected. Therefore, as Congress

considers reforms, we urge you to maintain the balance

between state and federal tax systems by preserving the

income exclusion for municipal bond interest and the

deductibility for state and local taxes.

The financing engine that drives U.S. infrastructure is the

$3.8 trillion municipal bond market. Changes to federal laws

and regulations should not increase issuance costs to states

for municipal bonds or diminish investor demand for them. If

federal changes make issuing municipal bonds cost-prohibitive

for states and local governments, then fewer projects could

be funded, taxes could rise, fewer jobs created, and economic

growth will suffer.

Governors also believe that no federal law or regulation

should preempt, limit, or interfere with the sovereign rights

of states. A mark of sovereignty includes the ability to

develop and operate revenue and tax systems. Deductibility of

state and local taxes has contributed to the stability of

state revenues that are essential for providing public

services. We encourage you to avoid changes to the tax code

that would undermine the ability of state and local

governments to meet the needs of the citizens whom we all

serve.

Eliminating state and local tax deductibility, moreover,

exposes a higher share of an itemizing taxpayer's income to

federal taxation because it adds back mandatory payments of

state and local taxes already paid, as taxable income.

Federal tax reform requires an intergovernmental

partnership because decisions at the federal level will

affect state and local governments profoundly. We look

forward to working with Congress on bipartisan tax reform to

maintain balance between our systems and modernize the

federal tax system to meet the needs of our citizens.

Sincerely,

Gov. Brian Sandoval,

NGA Chair.

Gov. Steve Bullock,

NGA Vice Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Members to vote to defeat the previous question; and if we do, I will offer an amendment proposed by Representative Schneider that would prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal and to discuss the importance of the State and local tax deduction, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been outspoken on this issue on behalf of States and communities and middle class taxpayers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to respond.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, and this will probably have to be it because, unfortunately, we have so many speakers over here. I wish I could enjoy the loneliness that my colleague from Georgia enjoys that nobody wants to speak to defend this budget.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia, we don't need lectures on cooperation and bipartisanship. We have offered to work with Republicans on tax reform. We have offered to work with Republicans on improving the Affordable Care Act. Every time the Republicans talk about rolling up their sleeves, we are not there. We are not invited.

So if you want bipartisanship, open up this process. Go back to regular order. Hold hearings. Listen to our ideas. Don't write bills in the back room and rush them to the floor and force the Members up here to vote up or down on them. Yes, we want cooperation. We want bipartisanship, but we don't need any lectures from anybody on the other side of the aisle.

This has been the most closed Congress in history. We don't need any lectures on the importance of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires. Again, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in his opening remarks, and this chart is based on their analysis. Basically, let me repeat, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of all the benefits.

If you think that that is fair, if you think that that is representing your constituents, then go ahead and vote for this budget, because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this.

I don't think it is fair. I don't think anybody on the Democratic side of the aisle thinks it is fair, and I am hoping that there are some on the Republican side of the aisle who think that that is not fair as well.

The gentleman from Georgia talks about cooperation and about we need to get along. I mean, who disagrees with that? But actions speak louder than words. You can't talk about open, transparent processes and then, as we just heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), have the Ways and Means Committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed doors without any help from the Democrats, but having no hearings--not allowing any administration official to come up and testify.

How is that an open and transparent process? How does that encourage the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? I mean, I thought my friends would have learned from their terrible experience with their repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act what happens when you write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without even the committees of jurisdiction, by the way, in that case, deliberating on what the final product should be.

I thought you would have learned from that process, and you ended up failing at the end of the day. I hope that this effort that my Republican friends are now undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people in this country, I hope that that fails as well.

A lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. My friends on the other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. In the Rules Committee, almost virtually everything is closed. Everything is shut down. Germane amendments routinely deny the ability for Members to offer them on the House floor because the Republicans don't want to deal with them. They are afraid they might lose. They don't want to have the debate.

If you want cooperation, if you want a bipartisan tax reform bill, then you just can't say it; you have to do something. In 1986, the last time Congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full committee hearings spanning over a year. There were 26 days of markup between September and December. This time, the timelines being reported in the press are maybe just a week, or a little bit more, if that.

Again, if recent history is any indication, we might not even get that. A bill might just miraculously appear one day and be rushed to the floor so that no one has time to read it or analyze it and so that none of our constituents have time to understand what is really happening here.

So I go back to that chart. One percent--1 percent--of the wealthiest interests in this country get 80 percent of the tax breaks.

If you think that that is fair, then vote for this budget, because this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward.

If you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits and debt, please vote ``no'' on this budget, because this allows us to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion.

Whatever happened to deficits matter? I guess it is inconvenient because tax cuts for billionaires matter more than deficits and passing on that debt to our kids.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on this budget, and to fight like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the Republican side are pushing. This is bad policy. This is bad for our country. This is bad for middle class families. This is bad for not only my constituents, I would argue it is bad for your constituents.

It is about time that the people's House starts enacting legislation that benefits the people of this country, not just a few who are well off and well connected.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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