Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, and providing for proceedings during the period from November 17, 2017, through November 27, 2017.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the chairman mentioned President Reagan. But he made it sound as though President Reagan did tax reform on his own. Tax reform in 1986 was done in a bipartisan manner. I guess we just leave out Speaker O'Neill and we just leave out Chairman Rostenkowski and we just leave out Senator Bradley or Congressman Gephardt. The reason that they are left out is because even though it was accomplished in 1986, it started in 1982 when Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Bradley introduced the first tax reform act.

What happened in those intervening years?

The Ways and Means Committee took testimony from 50 witnesses. They held 30 markups and an untold number of hearings.

Contrast that with what we did in the Ways and Means Committee: not one witness, not one hearing, not one opportunity to hear from renowned economists, labor leaders, or individuals who would have great knowledge not just of what happened in 1986, but what could happen in this Chamber. Instead, we are going forward with this ill-considered effort.

This is a missed opportunity. This is a bad deal for millions of Americans in the middle class. The legislation puts the wealthy, the well-connected, and the strong, once again, at the top. Thirty-six million Americans are going to receive a tax increase.

When they talk about tax simplification, take a look at the phase-ins and phase-outs of this measure. That is hardly simplification. It is greater complexity.

Oh, by the way, the corporate rate is made permanent. The individual issues phase out after 5 years.

Consider this: 13 million people will lose their health insurance based on what Republicans are doing in the United States Senate. They are going to lose their healthcare to pay for a tax cut for people at the very top.

Let me just walk you through some of these provisions because I think that they deserve our attention and the magnifying glass of critical analysis.

We are being asked tonight to borrow $2.3 trillion to pay for this tax cut. This is from people who regularly lecture the American electorate on the need for fiscal austerity and balanced budgets.

When Barack Obama was President, the budget should be balanced. When Bill Clinton was President, the budget should be balanced. But in the intervening period of time, apparently, we don't have to balance the budget.

Also, $2.3 trillion is being added to the debt and deficits. We are witnessing what they are attempting to do because they are going to scale back the tax benefit for buying a new home by lowering the cap on mortgage interest deduction to $500,000. That is going to lower home values.

H.R. 1 repeals the new markets tax credit. The historic tax credit that has transformed American cities is being eliminated. They beat up on the municipal bond market.

As a former mayor, I have some knowledge of the municipal bond market.

They are getting rid of the private activity bonds. Years ago, I raised the cap so that we might do more intervention and innovation in terms of rebuilding our airports across the country. Private activity bonds are a key for financing affordable housing. It is going to go by the wayside if they have their way. It is going to have a profound impact on the housing market.

They eliminate several deductions and exclusions that help pay for college education, including a deduction for interest on student loans.

Pay attention to this number. Student debt in America is at $1.3 trillion, and they are taking away the ability of students to deduct that interest on those loans.

They also impose a new tax on universities and colleges.

They repeal the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses. You know, those teachers who, in September, might be short some school supplies and they are good enough to pack the car up and bring it to school? We give them a $250 deduction. They are going to take it away.

They create a health tax, an Alzheimer's tax, by repealing the medical expense deduction. This change basically scraps a family's ability to receive financial relief when dealing with serious medical conditions.

Think of it this way: We celebrate annually the increases in life expectancy in America--80 for a male, 81 for a female. But if we are going to celebrate that, we also have to acknowledge something else: more dementia and more Alzheimer's as people grow older in America. So their decision is: Let's take away the ability of individuals to deduct those expenses.

They also want to write off a very important consideration for the middle class in their ability to deduct real property tax costs up to $10,000.

Contrast this with what these tax cuts do for the wealthy.

H.R. 1 repeals the estate tax, which is paid by a small number of families in America. They are going to repeal it. I guess the slogan becomes: We are rich, and we are not going to take it anymore. That is not a tax on Conrad Hilton; it is a tax on Paris Hilton. That is what we should be considering with the greater efforts on their side to further concentrate wealth.

By the way, there is an issue I have worked on for decades here, successfully, because 27 million middle class families no longer pay the alternative minimum tax. But guess what they are going to do? They are going to eliminate it for 4.5 million of the richest families in America. They are going to take away that payment.

This is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. This could have been done the way Chairman Brady indicated in 1986: hearings, markups, a genuine effort to find common ground on this.

On our side, I have waited all these years to do this. Tonight and tomorrow, what you are witnessing is that they need a victory. That is what this is about. It is a victory in search of a policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am for maintaining the status quo by allowing students to deduct their student interest loans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, this bill phases out the deductions that benefit middle-income families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 Nebraska households making under $137,000 a year will see a tax increase under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), my good friend from Somerville, Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of Mr. Paulsen's constituents claim the SALT deduction, a benefit of over $15,000. They are lucky to break even after this tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, over 350,000 Tennessee households making under $132,000 will see a tax increase with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a leader on the Higher Education Subcommittee and well known nationally as a spokesperson on education issues.

Mr. Speaker, all of those projects in Philadelphia are about to come to an end with the abolition of the historic tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who, incidentally, is a CPA and a tax attorney

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

Mr. Speaker, 38,000 South Dakota households making less than $113,000 a year will see a tax increase under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the highly regarded gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the son of Massachusetts and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a well-regarded champion of middle-income people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a valued member of our delegation.

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

Madam Speaker, correction. Not one hearing was held on this tax bill. Thirty-eight thousand people in Mr. Reed's district will lose the student loan interest deduction.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a real champion of the working class in America.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a son of Springfield, Massachusetts, and a very distinguished gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the University of Notre Dame is about to get slugged with a new tax, and the clock is running out.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who has been a champion of the working class.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity as we proceed to watch them borrow $2.3 trillion on the deficit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), from a well-known family.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), a conscience of the House and a champion of all things Pittsburgh.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is well known and well regarded as he addresses national economic issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), well-known as a champion of America's middle class.

Madam Speaker, 28,000 people will use the student loan interest deduction in Missouri's Eighth District, claiming nearly $33 million in deductions.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a medical man and Congressman.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I just happen to have the nephew of former President Kennedy here who is going to set the record straight on that quote that was attributed to President Kennedy just a few moments ago.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), a very good member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and my friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). Congressman Raskin is a well-known champion of civil liberties and a scholar of the law.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell). Congresswoman Sewell is an attorney and a Marshall Scholar.

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

Madam Speaker, 33 percent of Mr. Knight's constituents derive a $16,000 annual benefit from the State and local tax deduction.

In the case of the gentlewoman from California, 37 percent of her constituents enjoy an $18,200 State and local tax deduction benefit.

Madam Speaker, in closing, more than anything else, this is, as I opened with, a missed opportunity.

We all know what is wrong with this Tax Code. We could have found areas of compromise emphasizing the middle class and middle-income earners. We understand that the Tax Code that American corporations use is not competitive now internationally, but we wanted some relief for middle-income people.

So here is where the investment could have taken place. We could have begun an investment in human capital. You have heard it tonight. We should all be alarmed by labor participation rates in America. We all should be alarmed by what has happened in the post-war period where, at one time, it was 63 percent, and now it is 63.8 percent.

It is about technology; it is about globalization, for sure; but it is also about skill set. Eighteen thousand precision manufacturing jobs in New England go unanswered, the smallest geographic region of the country. The Department of Labor reported this week that 6 million jobs in America go unanswered. It is part of a skill set issue.

You know what else we need to be concerned about?

Two million people in America are addicted to opioids. That is what we should be concerned about as well as getting them back into the workplace through the trampoline effect, where they hit it and bounce back up into the mainstream. But that is not what we did.

Without any hearings, without any chance for the minority to participate, in terms of substance, we moved forward.

I want to say to the last two speakers, they are sincere enough. We have heard now four different people come to the well of this House on the other side and say to the chairperson of our committee and a friend: Are you going to fix this after the bill leaves here?

Four different people asked for a fix. I want to tell you, based on long experience in this House, the path gets more narrow as it leaves this House. It doesn't grow more expansive. It will be harder to fix these things because of the budget score that was embraced.

In 2001, we were promised widespread economic growth when President Bush took the Clinton surplus and offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. When you look at the distribution tables, they were right about one thing: everybody did get a tax cut. But then you look at those tables and you say: Let me examine who got what.

In 2003, we came back and the President proposed $1 trillion worth of tax cuts based on the premise of economic growth, which didn't happen.

By the way, in 2004, there was repatriation, which may be the granddaddy of them all. Well, we are going to repatriate those holdings offshore at 5\1/4\ percent o the premise of job growth. And there was none.

We had this opportunity to do this together, as I described with worker participation rates, understanding that most families now are not having large numbers of children any longer. This should have been about immigration reform attached to it as well. We all know skilled workers from overseas are going to be an important part of the American economy, and we should be embracing that, along with sensible tax policies based upon some relief for the middle class.

Instead, we are taking away the ability of American students to deduct interest on their loans to pay for a tax cut for people at the top?

We are taking away a medical expense deduction for people who have Alzheimer's disease to pay for the tax cut for people at the top?

We are assessing universities and colleges a new, special tax to pay for tax cuts for people at the top?

We could have had this conversation. We acknowledge what President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill did because it was based upon good will and commonality and not needing just a political victory. Day after day they plowed through with 450 witnesses in front of the Ways and Means Committee.

How many witnesses did we have in front of the Ways and Means Committee?

Zero.

How many hearings did we have on this tax bill?

Zero.

We saw the manager's amendment and were given 20 minutes to review it. I don't mean 25 minutes. I mean 20 minutes. Back to regular order. We should scrap this bill.

To those who are vulnerable on the other side, I would not be trusting of the idea that these issues are going to be fixed after you cast this vote tomorrow morning. There will be an opportunity to go back and redo this if the other side would say: Let's find a meaningful path to cooperation between the two parties.

That is all we are asking for on this side: include us in this discussion so we might invest in community colleges, vocational education, internship programs, skill set training, and answer the call of globalization.

We still have innovation and creativity that far surpasses the rest of the world. There is nothing we can't answer in America without those healthy investments that we need.

Instead, when you look at these distribution tables that are proposed as to who is going to get what; taking away the alternative minimum tax for the 4.5 million families that pay it; asking students to give up their student interest deduction; the estate tax, which we are repealing; and we are asking that loved ones who have Alzheimer's and being cared for at home to give up that medical deduction to pay for all of that, it makes no sense whatsoever. But there is an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to reverse course.

In my years here, I can tell you this: Anybody who thinks that the United States Senate is going to accommodate their wishes, when they see the goalpost and the goal line of a handful of Members of this House, they are making a miscalculation.

We have heard tonight they are going to do something about state and local tax deduction, they are going to do something about the historic tax credit, and they are going to revisit these issues.

Do you know how difficult that is going to be, Madam Speaker?

That is going to be nearly impossible.

On top of that, they are going to go back and try to appeal the Affordable Care Act again and take 13 million people away from their insurance so that we can have a tax cut that further concentrates wealth for a handful of people in America?

This is the House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, not the House of Lords. We don't serve here by peerage. We are not entitled to anything here. Most of us come from pretty modest backgrounds. That is the principle we should be honoring in this tax debate as we discuss who is about to pay what and what the rewards ought to be for the hardworking men and women.

This is last note I am going to express before I yield back my time. What about those 1 million veterans who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan?

New veterans, what about them?

Are we going to eventually cut their benefits with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and put it all on the chopping block as we attempt to further concentrate wealth in America, particularly for unearned income, by the way?

That is where we are heading.

We should honor the skills of those men and women who get up every day and strive and work hard in this country with a sense of purpose and great patriotism. That is what we should be acknowledging in this debate.

I am looking forward to tomorrow morning, when we conclude this debate and spend the 2 hours discussing more of what we have witnessed here tonight. There will be more than enough enthusiasm on our side. They will be lined up to RFK Stadium to participate tomorrow morning in this debate. That is how important this is to the future of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my dear friend, 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I would offer my thanks and collegial admiration and respect to the members of the Rules Committee who, last night, once again, on an expedited basis, spent time devoted to the duty that they have not only to their party, but also to the House of Representatives acting on behalf of the American people.

The gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings; the gentleman, Mr. Polis; and certainly our friend from Worcester, Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, conducted themselves not only in the highest of spirit, but they also produced what I believe was a fair argument, a product that they could be proud of. Each of the witnesses that came before us, including Democratic Members of Congress and Republican Members of Congress, provided, I believe, top-notch testimony and information on behalf of their ideas.

I personally want to thank Judge Hastings for his time last night, which was late into the night, and today. My admiration and respect for his collegial activity is to be respected and appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Last November, the November which was 1 year ago, the American people spoke, and they spoke clearly. I believe they stood up and demanded change and action on our economy. They demanded an increase in understanding about America's lack in GDP growth, and they saw all across the country companies that continue to move overseas. They saw movement in our economy where people moved from one State to another seeking better opportunities.

I believe that the American people have spoken. We not only heard that, but we are trying to make decisions now that would not only help every single area of the country by picking those businesses that might be in the city, in the town and location that they want to be, but by infusing them with the opportunity to stay, to stay because they can not only make a go of it, but they can be competitive in the world market.

Lowering tax rates in this country will help the middle class of this country. It will help jobs and job creation. That is why we are here today. We are here today as a Republican Party where we are trying to work with the President of the United States, the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives to speak clearly about not only what we stand for, but our hopes and dreams for a better opportunity for all Americans tomorrow and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers on those promises that I just spoke of. This is a bold, progrowth bill that will overhaul our Tax Code and unleash the free enterprise system not just in my home State of Texas or in my city of Dallas, but, really, everywhere where business wants to be, it can flourish in an unfettered way because we are now going to be competitive. It lowers tax rates on all businesses of all sizes so job creators can focus on not only their product and sales, but they can hire more people, increasing paychecks and growth.

Growth actually is the key to what we are talking about today. Economic growth brings abundant opportunity: opportunity for people not only to have a job, but to have a career, control their own lives and make sure they can live where they want to live and so they can make their community stronger. That is this Republican viewpoint of what we are trying to get at, Mr. Speaker.

With the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, today's broken Tax Code here in America forces many businesses to move their jobs, research, and headquarters overseas seeking opportunities in a world environment of competition where they can survive and they can become more competitive. A corporate tax rate of 20 percent encourages American companies to bring their jobs back to the United States, opening up opportunity. This decrease is fundamental to making the United States more competitive once again.

The number one reason why America is not competitive in the world is no longer because of energy costs; it is no longer because we have the highest priced employees, no, sir. It is because Uncle Sam, State, and local taxes make it noncompetitive, which creates a higher cost as we compete around the globe.

This legislation will modernize the international Tax Code, also bringing back opportunities for American companies that want to bring their profits back home and encourage U.S. businesses to bring foreign earnings home, unleashing what will be, over some period of time, trillions of dollars that can come back home.

It reduces the tax burden on all passthrough businesses regardless of their structure or their sector. This legislation provides tax relief for job creators and creates capital investments, investments that will drive growth, once again, of paychecks and opportunities for growth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a direct and immediate boost for middle- income Americans who have been struggling to get by, let alone get ahead.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear today how we are going to have a new tax bracket. All Americans until they, as individuals, earn $12,000 and two working people at home earning $24,000 worth of income will not pay tax on that. It is intended entirely to help the middle class of this country.

H.R. 1 is about the entrepreneur, the family of four, the small- business owner, and the American people. The United States is already the greatest place in the world to live. We are proud to be Americans. But we have to be competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the tax benefits in this legislation go directly to the middle class. The American people want and need, I believe, to learn not only more about this bill, but how it will incentivize them to Make America Great Again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observations. We don't have 4\1/2\ years to work through the process that he talked about. The American people want and need something done right now.

I say to the gentleman that he is right, the economy is roaring--and it has been roaring since the day Donald Trump won the election--with an expectation of performance.

Why are we doing this now? Why at Thanksgiving? Why at the end of the year?

We are going to see that American business, as it makes plans for the future, is going to look up and say: We have got a better shot at keeping jobs here. We have got a better shot at being competitive here.

I think what is going to happen is you are going to see this boom, this big opportunity that is already well underway, to continue. But it is up to us to deliver that. It will be one party. It will be those pesky Republicans that will get it done. We are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a gentleman who participated for hours in the Rules Committee debate last night and is one of our most valuable young Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a delight it is for me to stand up and say that, the work we are going to do today, the President of the United States will sign. He is encouraging what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the National Federation of Independent Business--that is ``The Voice of Small Business'' in America--and also what is called a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

National Federation of

Independent Business,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation

of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small

business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of

H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This legislation will

provide much needed tax relief to America's job-creating

small businesses. H.R. 1 will be considered an NFIB Key Vote

for the 115th Congress.

Small business is the engine of the economy, and tax reform

should provide substantial relief to all small businesses so

they can reinvest their money, grow, and create jobs. Ninety-

nine percent of all American businesses are small businesses;

the average NFIB member has just 10 employees. Taken in sum,

however, small businesses create half of all private-sector

jobs in the U.S. and contribute half the nation's gross

domestic product.

Three-quarters of small employers are structured as pass-

through entities, meaning their owners are taxed at the

individual rate as opposed to the corporate rate. Crucially,

H.R. 1 reduces the tax rate on the smallest pass-through

businesses to 9 percent over five years, without industry

exclusions or restrictions.

NFIB supports passage of H.R. 1 and will consider it an

NFIB Key Vote for the 115th Congress.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to

working with you to protect small business.

Sincerely,

Juanita D. Duggan,

President & CEO, NFIB.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1--Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--Rep. Brady, R-TX, and 24 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1, the Tax Cuts and

Jobs Act. Passing the bill is an important first step in

achieving comprehensive tax reform that cuts taxes for hard-

working families and puts the Nation's economy on a path of

higher economic growth. The President's priorities for tax

reform have been consistent from day one: (1) cut taxes for

middle-income families; (2) simplify the Nation's complicated

tax system; and (3) reduce business taxes so that American

employers can create jobs, raise wages for their workers, and

better compete with foreign businesses.

H.R. 1 would deliver meaningful tax cuts for middle-income

families by nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering

tax rates, increasing the child tax credit, and creating a

new Family Flexibility credit. It would simplify tax filing

so that the large majority of Americans could file their

taxes on a single page. The bill would also cut the corporate

tax rate to 20 percent--below the average tax rate in the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Finally, H.R. 1 would lower taxes for millions of S

corporations, sole proprietors, and partnerships that pay

taxes at individual rates.

Based on a review of more than 100 academic papers, the

White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) estimates that

the corporate provisions in H.R. 1 would grow the economy by

between 3 and 5 percent over the next 10 years, which if

applied to 2027 Gross Domestic Product projections, would

result in an additional $700 billion to $1.2 trillion in

economic output per year. CEA also found that the same

provisions would increase average household income by at

least $4,000 annually.

If H.R. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors

would recommend that he sign the bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, the President's priorities and tax reforms are consistent and have been from day one.

Tax cuts for middle class families, simplifying the Nation's complicated tax system, and reducing the burden of taxes so that American employers can create jobs, raise wages, and better compete with foreign businesses, that is what we are going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a gentleman who serves on the Financial Services Committee and a distinguished young Member of our majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), from the Ways and Means Committee. At this time, we are putting the A-team up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, for his exemplary work and the work of his colleagues on the Rules Committee and my colleagues also on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, our previous speaker, the gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania, Mike Kelly, had it best when he said: `` . . . an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.''

What he did not say is--that will be in the record--is that John F. Kennedy said this on December 14, 1962, 55 years ago, in an address to the Economic Club of New York.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there have been a lot of people here who have given testimony, I think testimony that they intended to sway the voters and those listening in this country that the Tax Code that we have works just fine, but then they spoke about the frailties of that and they talked about jobs going offshore, they talked about jobs and economic activity going somewhere else.

I, being from Dallas, Texas, hear stories every day about people who are coming to Texas, coming to north Texas, coming because of the economic climate that will allow them and their companies to have a better shot at not only being competitive, but, as Mike Kelly said, to be winners in this economy, at the very top of the heap rather than at the bottom of the heap.

What this common denominator is, is that my State of Texas does do the things that this bill does also. It keeps taxes low, it creates opportunity.

By the way, how many poor people create jobs?

I don't know.

How many of those who really have incentive and entrepreneurship create jobs?

A ton of them.

We are going to grow entrepreneurs out of today. We are going to grow young people getting out of college, veterans leaving the military coming back and seeing where they can make a go of it. Instead of it being a 95 percent failure rate of new business--which is what it is, it is a heavy bar because of rules, regulations, and taxes--we are going to make it easier.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers based their review, as they provided the economic outlook to us, on more than 100 academic papers, estimates that corporate provisions in this tax bill alone will grow our economy, not leave us in 23rd place, as Mike Kelly said.

Who wants to be in 23rd place?

If you want to be in the top 25 and you are comfortable, sorry.

We want to be at the top. We want to Make America Great Again. We want to be able to say that businesses all over the United States stand a chance, and that is what this does.

The Council of Economic Advisers says that this will grow the economy between 3 and 5 percent.

Whoops. They got comfortable with 1.2 over 8 years. I am not comfortable and the American people aren't comfortable either.

We are going to add some $700 billion to the economy this next 10 years. That is the guess, that is what Republicans want to do, but it is based on a lot of factors, it is based on hard work.

America has the best, most innovative workers in the world. We want to put this together with an opportunity, because we have a great place to be: the United States of America, any of our States. We have the best energy policies in the world and we have the best price. We have the best workers. We have tool kits with our universities. Our industry will grow back and reinvest in themselves.

We are going to take our Tax Code and take what is $5.6 trillion worth of tax areas and move that where it will boost our economy. We will become pro growth again. Yes, we heard that it was John F. Kennedy, it was Ronald Reagan, and it is going to be making America great again.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation in order to boost middle class Americans.

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. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, yielded me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through obfuscation, mathematical gimmicks, and a rushed and closed process, and all in an obvious attempt to hide from the American people the devastating consequences the Republican-led tax scam bill will have on working class and middle class Americans.

Just so we are all crystal clear on this point: Who, under this tax bill, benefits on the backs of working and middle class Americans? Yes, folks, it is the wealthy corporations and the richest among us.

The Republican majority has made lofty claims about their bill, saying that because of this legislation, everyone gets a tax cut, jobs will be plentiful, and that the economy will grow exponentially and astronomically. The White House has even said that the tax cuts would result in each household receiving an additional $5,000 to $9,000 in annual income.

Mr. Speaker, it seems there isn't anything that Republican leadership won't say to get their own Members to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, they can make all the claims they want, but the actual tax experts who have analyzed this bill paint a much darker picture about the consequences of this legislation. According to one nonpartisan tax analysis, today's Republican plan will result in a tax increase for 38 million middle class Americans.

Not to worry, though. While these hardworking middle class families have to deal with the tax increase, the richest 0.2 percent of Americans will get a windfall. In fact, the estate provision in this bill alone would allow the heirs of just 11 ultrawealthy individuals to pocket up to $67.5 billion. An estimated 80 percent of the tax cuts in this legislation will go to wealthy corporations and the richest 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, even more astonishing, a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that this Republican tax bill could trigger automatic cuts to mandatory spending to the tune of $136 billion, including $25 billion in the Medicare cut.

Let that sink in, because actually what is getting ready to happen here is we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and these deficit hawks on the other side are then going to turn right back around and say that we need to pay for these things. Then watch out Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, because that is the objective, in my view, in the first place.

In order to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and corporations, my Republican colleagues are not only raising taxes on the middle class, but are now potentially triggering a $25 billion cut to Medicare.

If this inequity were not staggering enough, Americans also have to keep in mind that today's Republican tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy is not only on the backs of the middle class, but also future generations, as this bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are making the tired excuse that these cuts will pay for themselves. If they did, then we would have the easiest jobs in the world. Just cut taxes, and magically we will have even more revenue to pay for the important needs of our country. That sounds a lot like the old trickle-down-which-never-worked economics. It sounds that way to me, and we all know that as far as economic theories go, that one was and is a complete and total dud.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize the majority's attempt to overhaul our Tax Code for the first time in 30 years: they raise taxes on middle class Americans, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and manage to explode the debt all at the same time--all this while also leading the most closed Congress in history and shutting out Members of Congress who represent nearly half of the American people.

Hear that, America: a lot of your Representatives had no opportunity to say or do anything regarding the measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Speaker, let us step back and really get a full view of how callous this bill is for our Nation by looking at how the bill treats middle class Americans versus its treatment of the ultrawealthy and corporate America.

Under this Republican tax scam bill, a working class schoolteacher who buys supplies for his or her students would not be able to deduct that expense, but a corporation that buys supplies for itself would be able to use such a deduction.

Under this Republican tax bill, a middle class homeowner would see their property tax deduction capped at $10,000, but a corporation would not face the same cap.

Under this Republican tax bill, if a worker was forced to relocate for his or her job--footnote there, including the military--because the company moved or, in the case of the military, they were relocated, he or she would not be able to deduct that moving expense; but if a corporation decided to relocate, even to relocate overseas, it will be able to deduct its moving expense.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. But we shouldn't be surprised. As the old adage goes, bad process makes for bad policy.

Not since the Republicans' failed attempt to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans have we seen a process that is this bad.

Take, for example, the last time Congress passed major tax reform legislation in 1986 and what that process looked like. During that effort, the Ways and Means Committee held a month of public hearings and took testimony from over 450 witnesses.

The legislation before us now has had no--zero--public hearings and testimony from no--zero--expert witnesses.

During the last tax reform overhaul, the Ways and Means Committee spent 26 days marking up the framework of the legislation. This time around, Republicans spent only 4 days marking up the legislation.

The 1986 legislation framework was released a year before it was passed in the House. In contrast, the framework for this bill was released less than a month before they started today's process of jamming their final bill through the House. There were no hearings and no amendments made in order. From start to finish, there was less than a month of actual consideration.

Much like the majority's rushed healthcare processes that produced an abysmal, destructive bill that would hurt working class Americans, this rushed process has produced a tax bill that benefits corporations and the wealthiest Americans, all while managing to raise taxes on the middle class and adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is lurching from one bad bill to the next with speed--not thoughtful policy--seemingly being the only goal. It begs the question: What is the rush?

As a matter of fact, I don't even think we need a tax bill of this consequence. According to them, the economy is roaring, unemployment is low, interest rates are low. So what is wrong with certainly leaving the wealthy in the category that they are in?

Why are my Republican colleagues setting an arbitrary deadline of passing a tax bill by Thanksgiving, instead of focusing on thoughtful policy and getting the substance right in a bipartisan fashion?

Everyone agrees that we need to do something about the Tax Code. Democrats have been ready to work with Republicans on this effort, but have been shut out of the process at every turn. Why?

The only logical conclusion is that this has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. It has nothing to do with helping the middle class, but instead is a callous political maneuver aimed at salvaging a stalled and ever-failing Republican agenda.

We are about to end the year with nothing having been done of consequence. Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. This conclusion is not based on my own opinion. Some of my Republican colleagues have admitted as much.

When asked about the need to move on to tax reform quickly, one of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle was heard to say: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' ''

Likewise, on the other side of the Capitol, one Republican has stated that, if the Republicans fail on tax reform, just as they did on healthcare, financial contributions will stop.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think politics should dictate our efforts to reform something as significant as the Tax Code. Our guiding light should be to help working folks get a leg up. The only way to do that is to work in a bipartisan, deliberate manner, hearing from experts and the American people, as they did in 1986, and not as my Republican friends have done this time around, spending a mere 3 weeks, with no hearings, no bipartisan efforts, simply to give us something done before Thanksgiving.

That approach only gets you what we have here before us today: a bill that, in my opinion, does more harm than good to middle class Americans and puts our country further into debt.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, I pointed out to my colleague from Alabama, whom I greatly admire, that he has a number of people claiming medical expense deductions who won't be able to do so under this tax measure. The number of them, in fact, is 22,052, and the total amount claimed under medical expense deduction by them previously was $186 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished colleague who I sit next to on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is like old home week from the Rules Committee people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a good friend who used to serve on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is old home week here with the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), another former member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will go home this week and tell people I voted against this horrible bill. And I will wonder if the last speaker would go home and tell the 11,249 people who utilize $131 million in medical deductions who will not have that under this bill, understanding that it could be different if they chose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a newfound friend and a rising star.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am prepared to close and would advise the chairman of that regard.

Mr. Speaker, a new Quinnipiac poll out yesterday shows the American people aren't falling for the Republican tax scam. Only 25 percent approve of this plan, just 16 percent think it will reduce their taxes, and only 24 percent said the Republican plan will help the middle class the most.

Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the American people, throw this dangerous plan in the trash can, where it belongs, and let's work together on a bipartisan plan to help all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction, which prevents millions of families from being taxed twice on the same income.

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

First, my Republican colleagues attempted to jam an abhorrent healthcare bill through Congress. They failed. After that failure, they moved on to today's attempt to jam an abhorrent tax bill through Congress. For the sake of middle and working class Americans, I hope my Republican friends ultimately meet defeat once again.

Mr. Speaker, we set the record with this particular measure of 51 closed rules in this session, the most closed rules in the history of Congress. What that means is a lot of the Representatives who had good ideas, more than 100 of them that offered amendments last night, were unable to be heard because of closed rules.

After this closed, disgraceful process, this Republican majority has presented, in this instance, a piece of legislation that skews tax cuts in favor of the ultrawealthy and rich corporations.

Now, let's make it very clear. Wealthy people shouldn't be disrespected for their wealth, but I don't know any wealthy people who are knocking down my doors, saying that they need a few more thousand dollars. But I know a lot of poor people who need a few hundred dollars, and this particular measure is not doing many of the things that would allow for them to be able to get on that last rung of that ladder and lift themselves up.

I heard the gentleman say a rising tide lifts all boats. They had the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show,

the largest one in the world, the week before last. All those yachts were lifted, but those little dinghies with the people fishing out in Lake Okeechobee were not lifted one doggone bit by this particular measure.

This bill does so on the backs of middle and working class people and future generations.

With this bill, the former deficit hawk Republican majority would add $1.5 trillion to the debt while potentially triggering $25 billion in cuts to Medicare. I might add that is where they are headed. Look out Medicare, look out Social Security, look out Medicaid.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 619, I call up the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1, the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the full House begins consideration of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, historic tax reform legislation that will revitalize our economy and provide lasting tax relief to Americans of all walks of life.

Over 30 years have gone by since the last overhaul of our Nation's tax system. In that time, our Tax Code has become one of the most complicated, unfair, and uncompetitive in the world. Today it is impacting nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, and not for the better.

The overwhelming complexity of today's system forces American taxpayers to spend billions of hours and billions of dollars every year just filing their taxes. Trillions of dollars in carve-outs and loopholes give favoritism to Washington special interests while hardworking Americans get nothing but frustration.

With some of the highest tax rates in the world for our businesses, we are seeing good-paying American jobs and manufacturing plants move overseas one after the other.

Today, with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we change all of this. With this bill, we have an opportunity to deliver the most transformational tax overhaul in a generation. But make no mistake, this bill is not about us. It is not about Congress. This bill is about--for the first time in decades--providing the American people with a simple and fair tax system, so much so that nine out of ten Americans will be able to file using a simple postcard-style system. It is about finally rewarding hard work, growing jobs and paychecks, and allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money to use on whatever is important to them.

So if you are one of the millions of Americans who is sick of today's Tax Code, you are going to see a remarkable difference. You will see the standard deduction doubled, increasing to protect more of every paycheck from taxes. You will have a larger child tax credit, providing more support as you raise a family and care for your loved ones. More Americans will get help raising their kids.

You will have peace of mind when it comes to life's most important investments because this bill preserves tax benefits to help you afford your home, to pay your property taxes, and put your kids through college.

So if you are a typical middle-income family of four making $59,000 a year, you are going to get a tax cut of nearly $1,200. More than that, you are going to enjoy the benefits of a strong, healthy, and growing American economy. You are going to see more jobs on Main Street.

With this bill, our small businesses will finally have low tax rates and a fair Tax Code that works with them as they grow and create jobs. You are going to see our larger businesses--our iconic American brands and our major manufacturers--win throughout the world and create new, good-paying jobs right here at home because, with this bill, we are going to have one of the most modern and one of the most competitive Tax Codes on the planet. That includes lowering our corporate rate from 35 to 20 percent, which beats many of our international competitors.

Not only are you going to see jobs stop leaving the United States, you are going to see our Nation become a 21st

century magnet for job creation and business investment.

With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the American people will see and help lead the way in launching a new era of Made in America innovation. In the end, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a striking alternative to the broken Tax Code we have today. It represents a bold path forward that will allow us as a country to break out of the slow-growth status quo once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have waited years--decades--for a fair, simple, and competitive Tax Code. Right now, in this moment, we stand on the doorstep of delivering the most sweeping tax overhaul since President Reagan's reforms in 1986. Like President Reagan back then, President Trump is now putting his full support behind this effort.

Let's pass this historic bill and take another step forward in delivering bold, pro-growth, pro-family tax reform for Americans throughout this Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that, in the district of my good friend from Massachusetts, the average family of four making $87,000 will see a tax cut of $2,032.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee and a leader in the tax reform effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), chairman of the Trade Subcommittee and a champion for working families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Nebraska (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee and a champion for agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, Massachusetts will gain 24,000 jobs; families will see a $3,000 increase in their paychecks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a key member of our committee and a leader in technology and employee stock options.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chair of the Budget Committee who cleared the path for this progrowth tax reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), one of the key members of our Tax Policy Subcommittee and a champion for working men and women.

Mr. Speaker, under tax reform, California will grow 111,000 new jobs, and paychecks will increase by nearly $3,000.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a champion of family-owned farms and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's constituents in Virginia's District 11, with average household earnings of $136,000, with two kids, will see a tax cut of $5,008.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership here.

Mr. Speaker, we will work together for a mutually accepted solution to make sure we exempt work colleges to use their endowments to provide tuition-free education.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the constituents in California's 13th District, a median family of four earning $107,000 will see a tax cut of $2,589.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McKinley for his passion about making sure our smaller communities can revitalize and grow and about the role of the historic preservation tax credit in doing that. I commit to working with him and continuing to work with him on this issue because I know the importance of it.

Mr. Speaker, because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in the Fifth District of Massachusetts, a median household of four earning $143,000 will see a tax cut of $5,208.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), one of our key leaders on tax reform on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am proud the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for that family of four in Ohio, in the Ninth District, a $64,000 household, will see a tax cut of $1,284.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Madam Speaker, I inadvertently cut the gentleman short. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Turner and Mr. Davis for raising this important issue. On the committee, Representatives Meehan and Lynn Jenkins led the discussion and share your sentiments.

I have a keen interest in this issue. I will work with you toward a positive solution on tuition assistance in conference with the Senate.

Madam Speaker, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for families of four in Vermont, making $89,000, will see a tax cut of $2,030.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), one of our key leaders championing for small business.

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank both the gentlewoman and the gentleman for stepping forward and being such strong advocates for taxpayers in a State that taxes its families and businesses, I think, almost beyond belief.

Our goal in tax reform is to achieve tax relief for families and individuals across the country, regardless of where you live, and across all incomes, while, at the same time, unleashing the economic engine for American economic growth.

California, by the way, under tax reform, is the number one job creator under the new Tax Code.

So I agree with the gentleman and the gentlewoman. There are still some areas where we want to make and will make improvements in this bill. If they will work with us to continue to move this process forward, I am happy to commit to working with both of them to ensure we reach a positive outcome for their constituents and families as we reconcile our differences with the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Washington is just hilarious.

Lawmakers back home tell everyone they are for tax reform, until it comes actually time to do it. Everyone says they want a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code, as long as you keep every special interest provision in this big, fat, messed-up Tax Code.

Everyone says they want to give people back more of what they earned and get Main Street businesses going, as long as you don't change anything in the Tax Code. As long as the lobbyists win and the American people lose, they are willing to talk about it.

House Republicans are actually acting on tax reform for the first time in 31 years.

In Washington, they sneer at that family of four back home making $59,000 a year. That is the average household. Under our tax reform, they pay $1,182 less that they keep in their pocket. Washington makes fun of that. That is real money for families.

A firefighter making $48,000 a year keeps over $1,300. That single mom working hard every day making $30,000 a year has a $700 larger refund than she gets today.

That Main Street startup business working I don't know how many hours, making $62,000 a year--that was my Chamber of Commerce member right there--in that startup business, they keep $3,007 more than they do today. Washington just laughs at that. But it is real money for real people.

In my district, a family of four making $90,000--two teachers--keeps $2,176 more every year of their life from this.

My friends on the Democrat side now worry about the debt. I remember the first year Democrats took control of the House, they doubled the deficit. The second year, they tripled it. The third year, it went to $1 trillion. It stayed that way until the American people gave the House back to Republicans.

They love spending money and raising the deficit when they let Washington grow, but when it is time to grow jobs and paychecks, all of a sudden they are worried about the debt.

The truth of the matter is we want to keep this debt and deficits going. Don't change anything. Keep this slow-growth economy, keep spending, and I guarantee you debts and deficits will grow.

We are talking about growing jobs, growing paychecks, and getting back to a balanced budget by getting this economy moving in a big way.

At the end of the day, it is time to end the status quo in Washington, D.C. Americans deserve a fair, flatter Tax Code, one that closes loopholes and ends special interest deductions so that Americans can keep more of what they earn, so their paychecks can raise and our businesses can compete and win anywhere in the world, especially here at home America.

It is time our jobs start coming back to America, rather than watching them go: our jobs, research, manufacturing patents, our headquarters. That era is over, and it starts with H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

We will continue this debate tomorrow, Madam Speaker, so we will continue to deliver tax reform and tax cuts for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.

Today, the House of Representatives is considering tax reform for the first time since 1986.

In the last 31 years, the world has changed a lot and it is time that we bring the Tax Code into the 21st century. This needed tax reform will put our country on a path to long-term economic stability and help hardworking families around the country get ahead.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help American families in important ways. First, it focuses on Americans in the middle of the earning scale by doubling the standard deduction and creating a new family flexibility credit for nondependents. Taxpayers will be able to deduct even more from their taxable income, reducing the need for tedious itemization.

In addition, the bill repeals the alternative minimum tax. This tax was never intended to be as broad as it has become, but because it was not indexed for inflation when it was introduced, many of us find ourselves having to calculate our taxes twice to see if we are ensnared by the alternative minimum tax. It is time for this one to go away.

With decreased taxation, American families have more money in their pockets, resulting in greater contributions to the economy.

The bill also alleviates some of the cost of raising children by expanding the child tax credit. It preserves the adoption tax credit so parents can continue to receive additional tax relief as they open their hearts and their homes to an adopted child.

This bill reduces the number of tax brackets from seven to four, with rates of zero, 12, 25 and 35 percent for most taxpayers. It does preserve the 39.6 percent rate of the previous administration for the highest earners. These reforms will help simplify the Tax Code and make it more competitive for hardworking American families.

I am grateful the Ways and Means Committee kept the step-up in basis, despite repealing the estate tax by 2024. The step-up in basis is an important component of estate planning when people are planning for future generations. This will allow people who may experience a tragedy to continue ownership of family property without bearing excessive penalties.

Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of the flat tax. I have introduced H.R. 1040 in every term that I have been in office, but I recognize this bill makes a lot of needed reforms and repeals some credits while maintaining those important to American taxpayers.

Donors will still be able to make tax-exempt charitable contributions, employers will still be able to contribute to 401(k) retirement savings accounts, new homeowners will be able to deduct the interest expense on up to $500,000 of a mortgage, and no changes are made as to Social Security.

I was actually hoping we could lower Social Security taxes. We couldn't. But we certainly do not increase Social Security taxes, despite what some of the fake news says.

Students will continue receiving a credit through the consolidated American opportunity tax credit.

Simply put, this bill will promote growth at middle-income levels, create a more favorable business environment, and continue important tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from Thomas Barthold to Chairman Kevin Brody:

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, November 14 2017.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Brady: You asked me to comment on the changes

made by H.R. 1 as ordered reported by the House Committee on

Ways and Means in the context of Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI of

the House of Representatives.

Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI sets special passage requirements

for measures that amend subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), or

(e) of section 1 or section 11(b) or 55(b) of the Internal

Revenue Code in a manner that imposes a new percentage rate

of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by

such section. H.R. 1 amends the relevant sections by

eliminating the 10-percent bracket, which is obviated as a

marginal rate as a result of the increase in the standard

deduction provided in section 63(c) and makes general changes

to the income thresholds at which the varying tax rate

brackets apply and eliminating several other tax rates of

present law. These changes combined with the increased value

of the child tax credit (in section 24) result in virtually

every taxpayer who formerly would have been in the 10-percent

tax bracket having a lower tax liability under the changes

that would be effectuated by H.R. 1 than they would under

present law.

Similarly, H.R. 1 eliminates the present-law 33-percent

marginal tax bracket. As a result there are some taxpayers

who would claim the standard deduction and had his or her

last dollar of income taxed in the 33-percent tax bracket

under present law but under H.R. 1 after claiming the

increased the standard deduction would have their last dollar

of income taxed in the 35-percent tax bracket. However, in

each such case the taxpayer's total income tax liability is

lower under H.R. 1 than under present law. For taxpayers who

eschew the standard deduction under present law there is

substantially greater variability in resulting tax

liabilities. With the elimination of some deductions that

taxpayers may elect to itemize under present law, it is not

possible to say in all cases that these taxpayers have lower

total income tax liability under H.R. 1 than under present

law. However, by comparison to the case of a taxpayer

claiming the standard deduction, the variability of these

results is clearly a consequence of the changes to the tax

base effectuated by H.R. 1 rather than a consequence solely

of the elimination of the present-law 33-percent bracket.

Because the House rule does not contemplate changes to the

Internal Revenue Code as a whole and the interactions such

changes have on tax liability, H.R. 1 requires a waiver of

the rule's provisions. In its totality, the combined effect

of the tax rate and income threshold amendments made by the

bill, along with the increase in the standard deduction,

would not, in and of themselves, result in an increase in the

amount of tax imposed on virtually any filer as a result of

these changes.

I hope this discussion is helpful. Please contact me with

any questions.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold.