Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were here. Does it not?

Mr. Speaker, we are 5 days away from Christmas, but it feels like Groundhog Day. Less than 24 hours ago, the majority stood in the Chamber and passed its partisan bill to provide tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and one President.

Speaker Ryan called it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but, apparently, by a twist of fate, he is getting that great opportunity again today, much sooner, I am sure, than he anticipated, because we are taking the bill up again this morning.

Maybe in the mad dash to provide massive tax breaks for corporations and the 1 percent, the majority failed to do the due diligence and properly vet the bill.

We found out, after it passed, that several of its provisions violated the Byrd rule in the Senate. Now, everybody knows about the Byrd rule in the Senate, and I don't understand why this was not found in the conference that was held for maybe 30 minutes.

This is the rule that prohibits the Senate from considering extraneous matters as part of a reconciliation bill.

After passing the House, provisions in this bill governing 529 college savings accounts and exempting certain universities from an excise tax were ruled out of order by the Senate Parliamentarian. The bill was so rushed that even the title of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, was found to be a violation. Let me repeat that. The very first words of the bill didn't pass muster with a nonpartisan rule keeper in the Senate. Imagine what other areas we have yet to discover.

This is a consequence of a process that was nothing short of an abomination. There were zero hearings on the text of this bill. Not a single expert was called in to give his or her experience. It got the votes to pass only after a series of closed-door, backroom dealings, and a conference committee between the House and Senate Republicans. Well, I think there were some Democrats there, but they tell me that none of them signed the conference report. The Senate was such a sham that an agreement was reached before the first public meeting ever took place.

Now, I know this is not the last time, Mr. Speaker, we will meet here to try to fix this bill. Mark my words, we will be back here next year to make more so-called technical fixes because of this hasty consideration.

The majority is rushing to pass a bill that is historically unpopular, clearly deeply flawed, and we will be forced to clean up its impacts and unintended consequences for many years to come.

I think we have all got a second opportunity here, and I would wish that my friends, to whom I only wish well, would grab up all their papers and run for the door and forget about this tax bill altogether. But I know that that wish will not come true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Georgia that it wasn't Democrats who found that. The Parliamentarian in the Senate found those errors, and they had to be corrected. Let's put history in the right perspective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Trump White House released a National Security Strategy Report on Monday, and it pointed out: ``The national debt, now over $20 trillion, presents a grave threat to America's long-term prosperity and, by extension, our national security.''

So what do we do about that? We are going to add $1.5 trillion more.

The overwhelming majority of expert analyses show that, even with growth taken into account, this bill will cause the deficit to skyrocket. It isn't just a threat to our economic security. According to the White House, it is a grave threat to our national security as well.

The bill in front of us costs $1.5 trillion and includes permanent tax cuts for corporations, but temporary ones for individuals.

So who do you think is going to lose those first?

It is really very troubling, I think, too: the idea of looking ahead to what we are going to be dealt with. And we understand already that next year the cry will be: Oh, look at this debt. This is awful. We are going to have to cut spending.

Entitlements will be the place where the Republicans prefer to go.

So let's prepare all of our senior citizens on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course, that also hurts the ACA, that they are going to be on the line next year.

Future Congresses will be pressured to reject the budget gimmick and extend many of those tax cuts, meaning the true cost of the bill is much higher.

According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the expirations and delays hide potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the cost of the bill to $2.2 trillion.

I am sure that my Republican colleagues will argue that growth will prevent the deficit from skyrocketing. But the CRFB reports that even with dynamic scoring, the total cost of the bill without budgetary gimmicks would be over $1.6 trillion and up to $2 trillion with interest. And that takes growth into account. As a result, our debt could exceed the size of our economy by 2027.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's analysis, entitled ``Final Tax Bill Could End Up Costing $2.2 Trillion.'

[From the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Dec. 18, 2017]

Final Tax Bill Could End Tip Costing $2.2 Trillion

The final conference committee agreement of the Tax Cuts

and Jobs Act (TCJA) would cost $1.46 trillion under

conventional scoring and over $1 trillion on a dynamic basis

over ten years, leading debt to rise to between 95 percent

and 98 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027

(compared to 91 percent under current law). However, the bill

also includes a number of expirations and long-delayed tax

hikes meant to reduce the official cost of the bill. These

expirations and delays hide $570 billion to $725 billion of

potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the

cost of the bill to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion (before

interest) on a conventional basis or roughly $1.5 trillion to

$1.7 trillion on a dynamic basis over a decade. As a result,

debt would rise to between 98 percent and 100 percent of GDP

by 2027.

Ignoring the expirations in this bill is particularly

disingenuous given the claim that using a ``current policy

baseline'' reduces the bill's costs. The (flawed) idea is

that the bill should be compared to a current policy baseline

that counts expired and expiring provisions as if they are

continued permanently. (For more on this, see Current Policy

Gimmick Would Add Half-Trillion to Debt (http://www.crfb.org/ blogs/current-policy-gimmick-would-add-half-trillion-debt)).

Using such a construct does not make sense if cost of

continuing future expirations contained in the bill are not

included in the initial cost estimate. Policymakers are

effectively claiming $450 billion of current policy savings

while ignoring over $700 billion of current policy costs.

This latest estimate updates our tally of the gimmicks from

a previous version of the bill (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/ senate-tax-bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). The

changes made in conference include both tax increases and

decreases that mostly offset each other, with a net increase

in the ten-year cost of $9 billion (compared to the Senate

bill). With these changes, the bill now has a total cost of

$1.46 trillion, or roughly $1.77 trillion with interest.

While there is no new dynamic score of the bill, assuming it

continues to produce very roughly $400 billion of dynamic

feedback (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/official-dynamic-score- shows-senate-tax-bill-will-still-cost-over-1-trillion) would

reduce that cost to about $1.05 trillion, or roughly $1.30

trillion with interest.

However, this cost does not account for as much as $725

billion of potential gimmicks that the conferenced bill

contains.

In the earlier version passed by the Senate, we identified

$585 billion (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax-bill- could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion) of arbitrary sunsets and

sunrises of certain provisions. Most significantly, nearly

all of the individual income tax provisions would have

expired after 2025. Additionally, the expensing provisions

``bonus depreciation'' began to phase down starting in 2022,

and a number of new tax increases appeared in 2026. Some

provisions were set to expire even earlier, such as an

expanded deduction for medical expenses and provisions for

craft beer and paid leave--clearly setting the stage for

future extensions.

The conferenced bill adds to the Senate bill's gimmicks,

which we explain here (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-tax- bill-could-ultimately-cost-2-trillion). Most significantly,

it advances the start date of the bill's requirement for

research expenses to be amortized, which nearly doubles the

ten-year savings of the provision. Additionally, the bill

tightens its limits on the business interest deduction four

years in the future--a future tax hike that may not be

allowed to ever occur. Other changes are smaller and move in

both directions.

Adding these gimmicks to the cost of the bill would

increase the total cost to $2.0 trillion to $2.2 trillion.

Though the dynamic effect of making the bill permanent is

unknown, we estimate a permanent bill would produce roughly

$450 billion of feedback, leading to a dynamic cost of

roughly $1.6 trillion to $1.7 trillion. With interest, these

costs would rise to $2.4 trillion to $2.5 trillion, or $1.9

trillion to $2 trillion with dynamic effects included, over a

decade.

Mr. Speaker, we have urgent spending needs. This bill could keep us from dealing with infrastructure, education, healthcare, medical research, and, of course, we have to pay the costs of our military.

Make no mistake, exploding the deficit to pay for this bill--this giveaway to the rich--will come at the expense of all of those priorities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that we are back here fixing the bill, though I am surprised it is so soon, because we have been saying all along that we have got a long way to go with this bill.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation from being considered on the House floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction, or repeals the ACA's individual mandate.

We know that repealing the individual mandate will lead to 13 million fewer Americans with health insurance and will cost premiums to rise by 10 percent. Now, I know that not giving healthcare is not much of an issue for the majority of this Congress because they have been trying to do that for a long time.

The bill also caps the State and local tax deduction, hurting taxpayers in my home State of New York, in California, and in other States in the Northeast, all of whom are donor States. My own State sends $48 billion a year to Washington, money that we get back nothing for. But we are not going to be able to do that anymore without this deduction. What we are doing then is risking the stability of the revenues that fund the public schools, fire departments, and hospitals in those States.

Mr. Speaker, let's make things right and defeat the previous question.

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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority is clearly unable to responsibly run the House of Representatives, because here we are fixing the bill less than 24 hours after it was passed.

It is a perfect example of why we need to go back to regular order: actually holding hearings, have expert witnesses and testimony, and properly vet bills.

That is pretty elementary, but it surely is true. It is especially true for bills of this magnitude that will effect every single citizen in America.

All the while, the government is about to run out of money, and we haven't even been able to reach a budget deal. That is Friday that the government will close if we do not do that.

We still haven't funded the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides needed healthcare to more than 9 million children.

We haven't reauthorized the community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people.

We haven't renewed the Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their education.

All of those programs expired back on September 30.

But here we are, wasting valuable time trying to fix the disaster of a bill that the majority passed just hours ago. It is embarrassing and it is humiliating. If we don't do better, the public is going to make us pay the price.

I want to close by quoting an article that appeared this morning in The Washington Post, written by a great columnist, Dana Milbank. I wouldn't miss his writing for the world.

``Maybe he is right and all those blue-chip economists and the nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, and others are wrong. Maybe growth will dramatically exceed forecasts, millions will enter the labor force and find work, wages will soar, and the $1.5 trillion tax bill will pay for itself. But if all that doesn't happen, the Trump tax will be blamed.''

Mr. Speaker, I end the quote there, reminding you, as Senator Schumer did yesterday, that this could be an anchor around your ankles for the rest of your lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill. For heaven's sake, let us take this opportunity given us and not force this onto the American public.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 668 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, last evening, the Senate, on a vote of 51-48, passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which I believe is in the interest of the American people.

This is a bold, progrowth plan that will overhaul our Tax Code and unleash the free enterprise system. It lowers tax rates on businesses of all sizes so that job creators can focus more on bringing not only more work to their workers, but also hiring more workers, increasing paychecks, and growing a competitive marketplace all around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to expand our economy, and there is nothing more important for any Member of this body than to know that the things that are happening in their own local communities are about the ability for people, whether they are just graduating from high school, whether they are graduating from a technical school, whether they are graduating from college, or whether they are looking for a second job or a longer career, to be successful in the marketplace in their own area, in their own home--not having to move somewhere to find a job, but in their own community. That is what we are trying to do.

We are trying to increase wages for every single community across this country. My home of Dallas, Texas, has been home to so many people who have moved there as a result of the, really, unlimited opportunities that we see right now in Texas, and that comes because Texas has found itself to be their home because so many other companies have literally been run out of their States because of high taxes--high taxes that are placed on those companies and the employees to where it makes living and being competitive more difficult.

During consideration of this legislation in the Senate, a few, relatively small provisions were removed through points of order in the Senate under what is called the Byrd rule, a parliamentary tool used during reconciliation.

The first change made by the Senate under the Byrd rule strikes the language that allowed 529 accounts to be used for homeschool expenses.

The second change modifies a provision that imposes an excise tax on the investment income of certain educational institutions. The change strikes a reference to ``tuition-paying'' students, making the exception to the excise tax available only if the institution has less than 500 students or if 50 percent or less of the students are located in the United States.

A third small change simply strikes the short title.

Mr. Speaker, all of these provisions were included in the underlying bill as it first passed the Senate and came to the House and passed. However, at the time that this was done, there were no parliamentary points of order which were raised, which were later done.

Mr. Speaker, these minor changes will allow us to advance exactly the same discussion that we had in this body, exactly the same discussion that we have had with the American people, exactly the things that we have talked about up in the Rules Committee and across this country, as Republicans have talked about the importance of the status quo tax laws that we presently have--moved so many companies overseas, moved jobs overseas, and is not encouraging American companies to be competitive because America, when combined with State and local taxes and Federal taxes, is among the highest in the world, which means that American business finds itself in a competitive marketplace, may be a great product, but, on price, we are not as competitive.

This will allow America to achieve the greatness that it needs for a great people who want and need to be great, also.

This legislation is about making sure that the rising worker, whether they are brand-new in the marketplace or whether they are an entrepreneur, or a mother or a father out in the marketplace looking for a job, will find the ability to be successful.

The United States is already the best place in the world to live. We are an incubator always for new ideas and small business, but we are now going to be able to celebrate that to make it easier. We are taking the Tax Code, instead of being the highest taxed Nation in the world, to be one of the lowest. It is going to mean great things for the American people, the American worker, and, most of all, for people who believe that we want America to be great again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. She has, as the Rules Committee has, taken a lot of time on this bill--we have spent hours not only discussing and debating the effects of the bill, what the bill is about, why we would do it--but most of all, her abiding ability to stand up and represent her party in their context, and I respect that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize we have a difference. We recognize we had a difference at the time we announced we were going to do this bill and we were going to change the direction we were going. This was part of a debate that happened during the Presidential election, where we had an argument. The Democratic Party very clearly said: We need to raise taxes.

Every year we see where they are on the floor during budget time to raise spending $1 trillion and raise taxes $1 trillion. That is more than what they had done under President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Mr. Reid; except what happens when you do that is you kill the economy, you kill the investment in families, in jobs, and in small businesses.

In the year after we had the massive tax increase, we had a GDP rate of zero. That is because there was this huge transfer from free enterprise to Uncle Sam, so the economy failed to grow. Then as the economy began to normalize, it normalized over the next 7 years at 1.2 percent.

That is what the election was about, Mr. Speaker. Since the election, what has happened is we have added over 1 million net new jobs, despite a huge storm summer that impacted a lot of employment. Our stockmarket has risen dramatically, meaning that America wants to be great again, too. We are going to make it together.

So we do recognize differences. They want a $1 trillion increase in spending, and they want a $1 trillion tax increase. We want to move it the other direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tax Policy for the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York not only for her service to the Rules Committee, but also for her service to this body and to her party.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, I will take her up on that. We will bet that this works because we looked at what happened when President Obama, Harry Reid, and Speaker Pelosi put a $1 trillion tax increase on the American people; then spent $870 billion on a surplus; then added in $1 trillion of debt when they worked the deal that was for student loans; then we did cash for clunkers; then we did cell phones for all; and it just went on and on and on and on. And now they want to place the $20 trillion deficit on Republicans.

What we are trying to do is to recognize that we did look at what happened economically during the 8 years that President Obama was here: 1.2 percent annual GDP growth, while our trading partners around the world--Germany, Japan, India, China--all raised their GDP numbers off growing economies because the average rate in Europe for corporate tax is 23.6 percent, while America was at 39 percent, and States all across the United States raised their taxation just like President Obama encouraged them to do: to grow government, to make it more expensive.

But what happened is, then the free enterprise system was not competitive. We began losing jobs all across the country. We began losing our competitiveness because of the high taxation rate. That is why we are going to do something about it.

So when you raise taxes $1 trillion and spend an extra $10 trillion over 8 years, there is an impact. Of course, there is an impact. What we are trying to do is respond back to the American people, who last November said: Instead of going that way, why don't we go this way; why don't we be the world's leader; why be 24th in the world in competitiveness for business; why not be first or second; why not add jobs; why not do something that places Americans, the middle class of this country in a better position?

That is the call that we are about. That is what Republicans have been trying to do, and we are responding with a bill that is going to take Americans--instead of being the most expensive tax country in the world, we are going to make us among the best. We are going to be an attractor of jobs, of investment dollars, of opportunity.

The real problem with this country, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a Member of Congress, spoke about it to the Rules Committee, tens of thousands of jobs that pay up to $60,000 in his home State are going begging right now. Thousands of jobs in this country are going begging because we do have a problem where America doesn't want to come and take these jobs; where we cannot have people who pass drug tests; where we have people who say: Well, I don't have those abilities. Well, in Dallas, Texas, my home, we have $21-an-hour jobs begging for people who could come and work.

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to encourage America and Americans, let's get to work. Let's make this happen. Let's not blame it on somebody else. There are jobs available in America, and we are going to answer the question. We are going to answer the bell. The Republican Party is going to stand on what we do right now, and we are willing to take what comes that way.

And I will tell you what comes that way. When you go from 39.6 percent, the highest corporate tax in the world, to where you mark yourself down where virtually the rest of the world is at 23, in this case 21, we are going to be competitive. Americans are winners. Americans want to win. Americans are the best at entrepreneurism. They are the best at being innovative.

We are now--instead of Uncle Sam taking 39 percent and making us drain our resources, we are going to incent Americans to go do it.

Mr. Speaker, my staff, Ron Donato, my tax man, who has spent a lot of time working with me listening to people back in Dallas, Texas, we think this is a good deal to make the free enterprise system, which is the greatest system in the world. We are going to fuel it; we are going to fund it; we are going to make it work.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, we will be willing to land on what happens here, so mark your calendar right now. Go look at where we are, and watch where we are going. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and, once again, I commend him for being a champion of middle class families.

I want my colleagues all to hear the esteem in which we hold our Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee. I thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Neal, for being our ranking member and for your extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's middle class working families, and that includes millions of veterans. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in the history of America because we have, on the floor, probably the worst bill in recent time to come to the floor. That doesn't mean it doesn't have stiff competition from other legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but this is the worst because so many people are affected in such a negative way and because trillions of dollars of impact on our economy have been voted upon without any hearing, without any hearing from the people who will be most affected by it--no hearings, no experts, no listening to the American people.

Yesterday, our Republican colleagues stood on this floor and voted for a GOP tax scam that the American people oppose 2 to 1. Our Republican colleagues stood on the floor and cheered. They

cheered a bill that will raise taxes on 86 million middle class families and hand a staggering 83 percent of its tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Shamefully, the Republicans were cheering against the children as they robbed from their future and ransacked the middle class to reward the rich.

Today, the Republicans take their victory lap for successfully pillaging the American middle class to benefit the powerful and the privileged.

I come to the floor with stories of men and women and children that Republicans shamefully cheered against yesterday.

Yesterday, I wish the Republicans had heard, as we did, the story of Ady Barkan, 30 years old, father of a beautiful baby son, and Ady is suddenly stricken with ALS, 30 years old.

From his wheelchair, with a strong but wavering voice, he begged Congress not to pass this bill. He pleaded with anyone who would listen not to vote for this tax scam that will raise his health benefits and condemn Medicaid to devastating cuts as the logical next step. He has been lobbying on Capitol Hill against this bill for a while. Ady said yesterday it would do so much damage.

It would deprive me of the Medicaid I need to stay alive a

little longer and see baby Carl learn to read and teach him

how to play chess and watch him go to first grade.

But Republicans didn't listen, said ``no,'' and cheered.

Yesterday, we heard the story, and I wish our Republican friends could have heard it, of Laura Hatcher, mother of sweet and kind 11- year-old Simon, one of the Little Lobbyists.

Simon has a rare disease and cerebral palsy. His mother spoke of how their family watches the Muppet version of ``A Christmas Carol'' and how Simon sees himself in Tiny Tim, another kind boy with braces on his legs. Unfortunately, this story, as of today, does not have the same kind of happy ending as ``A Christmas Carol.''

But the story is not over, and like Tiny Tim, Simon and his family now find their future in danger because of the greed of those with power, the cruelty that is in the heart of the tax scam.

As Simon's mother, Laura, said:

Very soon I could, once again, be facing a future where I

don't know how I will be able to care for my child. This is a

thought I simply find too difficult to bear.

Since you didn't hear yesterday, I will go on to say what she said.

We parents of medically complex kids understand

consequences. We know what will happen if this tax bill

passes, if our country does not turn from this destructive

and immoral path.

But the Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no,'' and they cheered. They cheered against Simon because Republicans value the wishes of the special interest lobbyists over the Little Lobbyists, the voices of Little Lobbyists, sick children standing up for themselves and for their siblings, children standing with their siblings.

Yesterday, we heard from faith leaders, too. They implored Congress to reject this bill that punishes working families and rewards the wealthiest 1 percent.

I repeat: 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent; 86 million American working middle class families will have their taxes raised.

Sister Simone said she wept for the fact that our Representatives are not weeping over the damage they are doing to families across America.

They challenged us to honor our faith in this holy season, to remember that our first responsibility is to those who have the least, not to enrich those who are already privileged and powerful.

They challenged us to heed not only the message of Christmas, but to remember the words of Jesus enshrined in the Gospel of Matthew.

But Republicans didn't listen. They said ``no.'' They cheered. They cheered. They cheered against little Simon. They cheered against Ady Barkan. They cheered against people in need.

The GOP tax scam is a monumental con job, but who got conned? President Trump will sign the bill whenever he signs it. I know it is supposed to be today, but I hear the special interests are weighing in for him to delay it for some reason or another.

President Trump will sign a bill that betrays the promises he made in the campaign.

President Trump promised to eliminate the carried interest loophole; yet the Republicans wrote a tax scam that not only continues this outrageous loophole, but it gives even more loopholes to the wealthy and well connected.

President Trump promised to stop corporations from shipping jobs overseas, but Republicans wrote a tax scam that gives corporate America even bigger incentives to ship jobs overseas.

President Trump promised tax reform focused on middle class families, tax breaks for middle class families. Republicans wrote a tax scam that raises taxes on 86 million middle class families in our country.

President Trump promised he would protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but Republicans wrote a tax plan to explode the deficit and use it as an excuse to cut Medicare and Medicaid. They have made no secret of their plans. They have even said this week, to raise the Social Security age.

So who got conned? Did the people get conned by the promises? Did the President get conned by the Republicans? Is he signing a bill that betrays his promises to the American people?

It is all about the Republicans in Congress. They have in their DNA trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for corporations, and the former Speaker even said: If trickle-down creates jobs, that would be good. If it doesn't, so be it. That is the free market.

As Republicans head to the White House for their victory lap, hopefully they won't trip over the wheelchair of Ady Barkan and other Americans with preexisting conditions.

I caution them not to trip over the wheelchair of Simon Hatcher and other children with severe medical needs. They will be in the path of your victory lap.

Don't trip over the sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers who tend to the health and well-being of their sick children and their siblings and who will not stop fighting to protect them.

I told you yesterday in a public forum:

I caution you not to get in the way of a mother and father

of a child with special needs and disabilities or extreme

medical conditions. They will do anything to protect that

child, and they notice what you are doing here.

As you are on this victory lap, you will probably have to put on earphones so you can block out the pleas of faith leaders speaking up for hardworking American families.

I know the Republicans want to talk so they can't hear the truth about their bill, but the American people won't forget the false representations you have made. They won't forget how loudly you cheered when you hurt their families, their children with special needs, their families struggling to attain some financial stability.

And why? These people say to me: How could they be so cruel as to put the health provision in this bill that would possibly eliminate 13 million people from the rolls of health insurance? How could they do that? Why did they do that?

Why? The answer is always the same: to give them room to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country and to corporate America, unpaid for, permanently.

Our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts will show his credit card again today. They are putting this bill on a credit card that our children are going to have to pay for, robbing from their future.

This holiday they are talking about giving people a Christmas present? Well, Joe Sixpack, whom the President said he was there to help, and I hope that that is true, Joe Sixpack will be delivering the champagne to their parties. That is how this is. This isn't about anything better for working class families. This is about champagne glasses clinking and wealthy families across the country.

I don't begrudge them their success or their wealth or their achievement. I just don't want to see it at the exploitation of America's working families.

Shame on you for voting for this outrageous theft from the American middle class.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing in this people's House and vote ``no'' on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 668, I call up the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, 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, both the House and now the Senate have taken action on legislation to reform America's Tax Code for the first time in 31 years. Unfortunately, two targeted provisions did not meet Senate rules and had to be removed.

Today, the process continues to move forward, and, with this vote, it will be the House, the people's House, that officially sends this historic legislation to President Trump's desk.

I know the American people are excited. More than that, I know they are feeling a sense of relief. They are relieved that, for the first time in years, they are going to see more money in their paychecks that they can keep.

Think about that middle-income family of four, earning $70,000 a year. These are working families, and the tax cut of more than $2,000 they will see under this bill, that $2,000 is real money. It is real money these families worked hard to earn, but, until now, they have had to send it to Washington instead of being able to use it for their own needs, whether that is paying bills, saving for the future, or putting new tires on a car.

Think about the relief our job creators and our workers will feel. For so long, Americans have barely seen any growth in their paychecks, yet they are going to their jobs every day, and they are working harder than ever.

With this bill, that hard work is finally going to be rewarded, and we are going to see the growth of jobs and paychecks like we haven't seen in years.

For our businesses, large and small, no matter if they are a small startup with just three workers or a large company with 3,000, they are finally going to have a Tax Code that works with them as they grow, innovate, and invest in our communities. They are going to see relief from complexity and high rates and the feeling they are always having to compete with one hand tied behind their back.

For all these Americans, all the hardworking men, women, and families who bring life to our communities and to our economy, I think the major source of relief is knowing that, starting in the new year, none of us has to accept this broken Tax Code and this slow-growth status in America any longer.

With the new tax system we will deliver today, things will change for the better, and they will change immediately. This new Tax Code will be simple, it will be fair, and it will be focused on the needs of the American people, not on Washington's special interests.

This new Tax Code will be modern. It will be competitive. It will create more good-paying jobs right here in our communities, not drive them overseas. Above all, this new Tax Code, America's Tax Code, will not belong to the special interests anymore. It will belong to the American people. It will help more Americans realize their own American Dream, whatever that may be. For all the Americans who struggle and who have been left behind under today's broken Tax Code, that has to be the biggest relief of all.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of false claims these days by opponents of tax reform. We hear that this isn't relief for the middle class, that people will see their taxes increase. But the Tax Policy Center, the most liberal economic group there is, just grudgingly admitted yesterday that 90 percent of Americans will see real tax cuts in this Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, the only ones who won't are the one- tenth of 1 percent who could.

We hear today about betrayal. Well, let's talk about that.

This tax reform bill doubles the child tax credit and expands it to nearly four times as many Americans, helping them with the expensive costs of childcare. Democrats oppose helping our parents raise their children. That is betrayal.

In this tax reform bill, we increase the amount of medical expenses Americans can write off--medical expenses driven up by ObamaCare. Democrats oppose helping families write off these costs. That is betrayal.

Now we are expanding the number of Americans who can, and how much, give in charity to our churches and to their causes. Democrats oppose helping people give to the community and to the causes they believe in. That is betrayal.

In this bill, we, for the first time, allow families who are saving for their kids' future to be able to use that and transfer it to the new ABLE accounts because their child has special needs and may need help throughout their life. Democrats oppose letting families save for their disabled children's future. That is betrayal.

Then we hear over and over again how some stand for small business, our Main Street businesses. Republicans, for the first time ever, provide a 20 percent deduction for our Main Street and small businesses across America. Democrats oppose helping our Main Street businesses. That is betrayal.

For too long, we have watched our jobs move overseas. This changes. This tax cut bill brings those jobs back and, more importantly, allows our companies, when they compete and win around the world, to bring those dollars back to be reinvested in our communities, in jobs, in manufacturing, and in research. Democrats oppose bringing jobs back to America and bringing those dollars back to reinvest in our community. Mr. Speaker, that is betrayal.

At the end of the day, we have a choice. Do we give back to families, parents, small businesses, and to America the hope and opportunity of a new economy driven by what is important to them, not what is important to special interests in Washington, D.C.?

That is what this bill is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk deficits. Our Democrat opponents just hate the thought that we would give Americans back what they earned.

In 2009, when President Obama lifted the national debt by $1.6 trillion--more than this tax bill--they cheered. In the next year, when President Obama raised the national debt by almost $2 trillion in 1 year, they cheered. Three more times, President Obama and Democrats raised our national debt more than $1 trillion every year. And now-- now--they oppose it.

Why?

Because that was about Washington spending your money. This is about giving it back to the American people, and now, suddenly, you object.

Two trillion dollars of deficit in 1 year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Barr for his leadership. The gentleman is correct, Senate Democrats stripped this out. I am committed to working with the gentleman to find a permanent solution to this problem as soon as possible.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to my Democratic colleagues: The worst bill in 29 years? With ObamaCare, don't sell yourselves short.

Today, we have a choice to make. We can either stick with the status quo--we just heard it--or we can take bold action to overhaul this broken Tax Code and restore hope, opportunity, and prosperity to Americans.

Our choice is clear, and I have made mine. I will vote to send this bill to President Trump's desk to get real tax reform done for the American people for the first time in 31 years. We will deliver for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the President just said in the last few minutes that the most important part of this legislation is the corporate tax cuts.

Stop the nonsense that you are doing this for the middle class.

In the 20 hours that have elapsed, Mr. Speaker, since we last had this debate, we were promised a number of things. The only thing they left out was that this tax bill was going to stem the tides, take us to Mars tomorrow, and the Cleveland Browns were going to win the Super Bowl.

The certainty of what they are telling us--if the stockmarket goes up, then they did it. The stockmarket has been going up since March of 2009. They talk about economic growth. Economic growth has now proceeded for 88 straight months. They keep telling us the rocket is about to launch because of this tax bill.

Do you know what is great about this, Mr. Speaker?

Reporters outside are starting to ask: Are you going to help them out if all of these things don't occur in the way they have said they are going to occur?

I said: After the appropriate period of review.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the longest-serving member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who is an extraordinary man. Our friend is the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is a Vietnam veteran and a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a champion of any and all things Chicago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on this side, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so in 1 month we have taken the entire revenue system of the United States without hearing from one expert witness, without having had one public hearing, without using any precedent, and we changed the entire tax system of the country, tilting it clearly to the people at the very top.

When they say, as they certainly will, ``We have been doing hearings for 5 years,'' we never had one hearing on this legislation. Not one. We did not seek testimony from one witness in the conference committee. We got to offer opening statements and no amendments. There was no chance for any input on our side.

More than anything else, this is a missed opportunity. This was a missed chance to take a system that we all know to have fallen into competitive failure across the globe. But instead, they decided to go it alone.

So here is the way you want to think of this, for those of you who are following this debate:

They are borrowing $2.3 trillion for the purpose of cutting the top tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 37 percent and calling that middle class tax relief;

They are doubling the exemption on the estate tax to $22 million and calling that middle class tax relief;

They are eliminating the alternative minimum tax for people at the very top and calling it middle class tax relief.

By the 10th year of this tax proposal, 83 percent of the benefit accrues to the people at the very top of our economic system. That is not in dispute.

They say things like: Well, in 5 years, we are going to correct this measure. Then they talked about the idea that somehow this was about simplicity. When you get into the phase-ins and the phaseouts, you are all going to pass out from trying to read this tax proposal.

The complexity they add to the system is unparalleled, all to secure a tax cut for people at the top.

So here we are in the holiday season, and they are telling us, by the way, that if we just borrow this money, everything is going to be fine.

What did they say about borrowing when Bill Clinton was President? What

did they say about borrowing when Barack Obama was President?

They lectured us, day in and day out, in an unyielding manner, even though the economic performance of Clinton and Obama outweighed the two Republican Presidents in between.

So here is the game plan for the holiday season. Do you know what the holiday hangover on your credit card is? People go out and use their credit cards, and they figure out all year how to try to pay for it.

It is going to take you more than 10 years to try to pay for this, all upon the spurious notion that they guarantee economic growth, as the President said, by the way, that is going to exceed 6 percent. That is 6 percent.

They are telling us that the stock market has gone up because of them, even though it has gone up since March of 2009. They are telling us now that this is going to spur unparalleled economic growth, even though the economy has been growing for 88 straight months, all on the credit card for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is the worst piece of legislation that has come from the House in the 29 years that I have served here, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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