spectacularly to replace obamacare. the house did manage to pass their version, but it was unpalatable to the senate, and that was not able to get through. in terms of their campaign promises that they have been talking about in the years before that, tax reform is the main legislative effort that they need to get through this year in order to have something to show for themselves. -- annadjutant covers edgerton covers congress for bloomberg. >> here's part of the house debate that begins with georgia republican. this is one hour. they expect to finish the budget resolution in the morning. the gentleman from georgia is

recognized for one hour. >> i appreciate that. i would like to yield 30 minutes to my friend from massachusetts. >> without objection. the gentleman is recognized for his much time as he would like. thank you mr. speaker. it is budget day. i don't know if you are excited about that. to be fair, i sit on the budget committee. i have a great honor sitting on the rules committee. by day i serve on the budget committee. we have been working since january to produce a budget for

the united states of america. we produced a whale of a budget coming out of the house rules committee. collaborativestic job bringing that budget to the floor. then it went to the senate. you know how this happens. watching, "i'm bill," we all know the song from our childhood. it is a long process to move a bill through. nine times out of 10 it comes back different me from the senate than the way we sent it over there. we have an opportunity today by rulerring, if we pass this , and concur on the senate amendment, and bring a unified

budget to the floor. what does that mean? we have been working on an appropriations bill. that is the bulk of the federal spending. all of the mandatory spending. security,social important programs on which so many americans depend. that money is already going out the door. today we have an opportunity to create what they call reconciliation instructions. contained in this budget, this unified budget, which the house and senate agree, our reconciliation instructions that allow us to bring what will be the most comprehensive fundamental reform of our tax code since tip o'neill and ronald reagan did it in 1986. four decades ago. we have an opportunity to do something that no other congress has been able to do since i have

been an adult. to be fair, we will have a lot of disagreement about how to get that done. that is not the debate we are having today. anybody worried that in this debate on a wednesday we will sort out our tax code, fear not. that is not the debate we are having today. the debate we are having is will we or will we not take on the challenge of reforming our tax code. i believe we will. the debate today is will we or will we not confront the fact that america has one of the least competitive tax codes in the world, that americans deserve one of the most competitive tax codes in the world. debate today is not about details of tax reform, but about the premise of can we do better for the american people or not? benefit of not having

to learn what i know about this chamber from watching it on tv. toonsider myself blessed have the opportunity to serve among these men and women. if i had to read about them in the headline, i would have a low opinion of them. but because i get to work with them, i get to see the real commitment to their constituencies, the commitment to their home states, the desire to deliver on behalf of their constituencies. we may have a divisive debate. but my prediction is that by the , we will have an agreement to take on one of the challenges that no party has been able to take on since democrats and republicans came together in 1986 to get it done. it is my great hope we will use that model. we will repeat that model. we will improve on that model

and produce something our constituencies can be proud of. america is hungry for tax reform. i believe we can deliver. support this rule. i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the john nunn reserves the balance of his time. reserves theman balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for his much time as he wishes to use. , i rise inker opposition to this rule. today, republicans are pushing a job telling budget so they can use fast track reconciliation measures to steamroll their billionaires first tax plan. this was supposed to be the

people's house. we ought to have a people's budget that helps americans who sent us to congress. not a budget that helps only a few, the well-connected and well off. this is not a time to celebrate. this is a terrible budget. this budget will devastate america's investment in good paying jobs. it makes cuts across the board that will hurt seniors, children, veterans, and hard-working people who are struggling to get by. why are republicans doing this? it is all in the name of fast tracking the ryan mcconnell tax plan which explodes the deficit trillion, and that provides tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. democrats think this is a horrible idea. what is astonishing is the blatant hypocrisy of republican leaders pushing this deficit

busting budget. republicans are always telling us how much they care about the deficit. it comes to giving beloved tax cuts to their millionaire friends, they develop a convenient case of amnesia. they say, what deficit? don't worry, these tax breaks will pay for themselves. this is absurd. in this republican controlled congress we can say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer matter. all the talk by republicans, they did not mean it. if republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the floor. but shows what they truly believe, where their values are, where their priorities are. how many times have republicans talked about the importance of a balanced object? the speaker calls for it deficit neutral tax plan in his better way agenda. this debt creating budget is a somewhat less better way. your budget chair took to

twitter two weeks ago to chastise senate republicans were not pursuing a balanced argent. now, she is fully in support of their budget which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with no way to pay for it. this is not a balanced budget. republicans desperately need a refresher on basic arithmetic. there is absolutely nothing balanced about hitting middle class families and hard-working americans with cuts, while getting leaders tax cuts. they simply do not need them. the universe are knocking down our door axing -- asking for more tax breaks. this is disgusting and shameful. they're stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from infrastructure, job training, advanced research and development. it devastates medicare and medicaid. it demands a deep cuts to safety net programs like snap.

i'm talking about food for hungry children and hard-working families. collegeafter affordability, and makes college more expensive for working families. it undercuts support for veterans and families. republicans are using this terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the wealthy as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences, and without bipartisan support. the tax reform frame work will raise taxes on the middle class, and cut taxes for the wealthy. 80% of 1% would receive all tax benefits. 80% of 1% would receive all tax benefits. give me a break. those making more than $900,000 a year would receive a tax cut of more than $200,000.

think about that. a person working full-time at $290 a week makes before taxes, and under this plan people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year get a massive tax break. corporations were receive a tax cut of $2 trillion. who loses in this plan? three middle-class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would actually receive a tax increase. half of middle-class families with kids will see the taxes go up. can you believe that? raising taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts are billionaires and corporations. this is insane. to make matters worse, republicans are planning to steamroll tax plans through congress. we are reading in the press we might seek their plan next week.

it may be up for consideration a week after that. don't we owe it to our constituents to have open debate on this legislation which will impact every one of them? i guess not. democrats agree that our tax system needs to be updated, to be more fair. especially to be more fair to the middle class and working families. we have always than willing to engage in real bipartisan tax reform. is notcan tax framework tax reform. it is just one more gop multi-trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class and working americans. in all my time in congress, i have never seen a budget and tax ton that harmed so many just benefit so few. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, both against this cruel republican budget, and oppose attacks land that puts wealthy corporations and the top one percent ahead of hard-working middle-class families.

i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. i had opportunity to mention at the beginning we might be debating the details of a tax reform plan that does not exist. we are in fact going to do that. there are a lot of studies on this tax reform plan that does not yet exist. agree that we have the single least competitive tax code on the planet today. we can all agree that with the click of a mouse, a company can transfer its assets overseas and grote jobs there instead of growing jobs here. let us have the debate that we want to have a about who should bear the burden of american taxation. that is legitimate debate and we should have it. let's not have a debate about whether foreign workers should benefit because that answer

should be clear. we have an opportunity to go from worst to first. i don't expect to get to first. i will settle for getting into the top five and out of the bottom five when it comes to being able to lead. mention, what i think is a source of frustration on constituencies on both sides of the aisle. that is the us against them conversation that goes day in and day out. i look at the chart my friend from massachusetts brought. i can see as a representative of hard-working families, that charted nothing to inspire me about tax reform going forward. my friend quoted the tax policy center. the wall street journal called the tax policy center a shill

for groups that don't want to see tax reform of any kind. they have been doing research for a long time. the research my friend from massachusetts quoted was on a bill that does not exist. the research i'm going to quote his historical tax rates in this country. ,hey said that 30% of americans one third of americans, pay no income taxes today. the tax code as it exists today protects them from any tax liability at all. what we are proposing when we get into fundamental tax reform is to double the standard deduction families that are already claiming a standard deduction, we talking about doubling it. the details are still in question, but we are talking about doubling irs. 30% of american families don't pay income taxes, and that same 30% gets a refundable tax credit that rebates to them their

entire social security and medicare contribution that they make, and the entire social security and welfare contribution that their employer makes on their behalf. these are not my numbers. these the tax policy center numbers. a full third of americans are not paying one penny for income tax or payroll tax of any kind. i am not here to debate the wisdom of that. i'm here to tell you i don't know how much lower i can go to cut taxes for that group. i don't know how to lower the tax burden on people who were not only paying no income taxes, but have their payroll taxes rebated to them also. is this a group we should talk about? she would talk about folks on the bottom rung of the ladder? should we talk about how it is the entitlement system, the benefit system is trapping people at the bottom of the

ladder, and not allowing them to climb to the top? we should. you, it wouldy to be misleading to the american public to suggest that this tax bill is focusing its attention in one direction instead of another direction. the fact is i cannot lower taxes anymore at the bottom of the spectrum. we are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. that does not inspire people. tax.port the fair in the spirit of folks who are enthusiastic about tax reform, i am not in that camp. i thought there was a better way. my better way is the fair tax. corporations don't pay taxes. corporations do not pay taxes. they collect taxes from their consumers in the form of higher

prices, from their employees in the form of lower wages, or from their shareholders in the form of lower capital. think you are just a conservative republican from the deep south, what do you know about this? i will quote the tax policy center. they say a full 20% of corporate income tax burden falls on workers. fair enough. if we want to argue about whether tax rates are going to end up, and how the cuts are going to look, and what the policies are going to be, let us have that debate. that is not mislead the american people into believing there is a free lunch anywhere in this tax. we have an opportunity to move from worst to first. american,le regardless of their region, regardless of their politics, is going to benefit from that change. it whenefited from

democrats and republicans came together in 1986, and they will benefit when we come together today. i believe that we will. we must. the john nunn reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i don't know where to begin. my friend from georgia made reference to the tax policy center. report from the tax policy center here. it is their analysis, that was the basis for the chart, which said the top 1% would receive 80% of the tax breaks. based on the republican framework. consent to insert the tax policy report into the record. where do they get this figure about adding to the -- to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? to

make that up? report in theican budget. let me read from their report. this title includes two reconciliation instructions to senate committees. the first would allow the committee to reduce revenues to increase the deficit by not more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. these are the words of republicans in the senate. the chairman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan, it is because we are presented here with the budget that essentially fast tracks attacks plan. we are right, we don't have the details yet because it is being negotiated and written in some back room in this building. i wish i knew where it was, and maybe we can find out more details. but we do know, is the framework. that is the basis for the

analysis that economist after economist has stated that this budget basically is a giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country. it is not somehow a break for the middle class. it is the opposite. this is a gift for billionaires and millionaires, and it does nothing for working families. that is why this is relevant. this budget was in place procedures are republicans to fast-track the tax bill that they are writing in some back room somewhere that nobody will see until the last minute. it will be rushed through here, and it is a big giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in the country. i wanted to clarify that for the record. mr. speaker, let me say republican plans for tax reform would also eliminate the state , calledl tax deduction salt. this deduction prevents many

middle american families from being taxed twice on the same income by deducting state and local taxes from their federal income taxes. half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle class families earning a household .ncome of less than $100,000 local communities will feel that pain. repealing the salt deduction would make state and local taxes were costly for taxpayers, would put pressure on local governments to lower taxes. the bipartisan governors association said in a letter on september 22, the salt deduction is contributing to state revenues that are essential for providing public services. these services include health care, police, fire department's, and schools. i ask unanimous consent to insert the letter from the governors association into the record. >> without objection. amendmentoffer an

proposed that will prohibit legislation from repealing the state and local tax deduction. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my minute and the record. >> without objection. importance ofthe the state and local tax deduction, i want to yield two minutes to that gentleman from missouri who has been outspoken on this issue on behalf of states and communities and middle-class tax payers. >> the donovan from new jersey is reckoned nice for two minutes. gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. >> this deduction has been part of our tax system before there was an income tax. .oing back to the civil war

for the very reasons my friend from massachusetts just talked about. it was not just picked up the shelf. .eople count on it people count on this. i rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule. previous question, the budget, the weather, whatever. we know this budget resolution paves the way for a tax reform bill done through reconciliation. that is interesting. i'm sure they want reconciliation we are talking about their pocketbooks. a dubious maneuver that blocks democrats completely out of the process. it allows republicans to pass a purely partisan juiced up bill.

comprehensive tax reform is a goal we should all share, and lasting tax reform should be bipartisan. my friend from georgia i think believes that. this is not it. while they are cutting deals behind closed doors, what we are pushing is eliminating the state and local tax deduction, and that is in the senate budget. abouticans are adamant eliminating this middle-class benefit. they added an amendment to that budget. let me be clear. a vote for this rule is a vote for the budget, is a vote to repeal the state and local deduction. gentleman anhe additional minute. my colleagues in so many

,tates including georgia or think wisconsin, at long and hard about their vote today. the american people are watching to see if they vote to raise their taxes. budgetendment in the falsely claims that the salt only benefits taxpayers. let's take a look at that. repealing it would hurt the middle class. at the same time, how do you keeping deductions viable for corporations? they can deduct the state and local taxes, but the families of america cannot? how can you justify that? i want to hear your justification of that. that will be a good one. between 50000rs

and 75,000, more than 70 percent of those claimed the state and local tax deduction. >> ideal the gentlemen additional 30 seconds. -- i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. >> i feel it in my bone marrow. we're talking about tax cuts. we are increasing the tax burden on the middle class, and you cannot tonight. there is no place in that budget that you can deny it. tired of that trick. we're representing teachers, realtors, sheriffs, all support retaining the state and local

tax deduction. it is bad policy, plain and simple. i appeal to you. we have enough ammunition. we don't need this ammunition for next year. in's think about doing this a nonpartisan way. frome gentleman massachusetts reserves this time, and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> if you wonder what kind of passion we have on the budget i enjoy serving with my friend from new jersey. everything he said was from the heart. productp as a bread or -- we end up with a better product. it is a legitimate debate to have. there are those from low tax whysdiction that satan would we subsidize those states that are hired tax jurisdictions? i know were my friend is going to go because i heard him make

the case before. those jurisdictions that are low jurisdictions, because the gentleman's constituency in new jersey make so much money, they pay more and income taxes. states like mine in georgia are the beneficiary of those dollars that distribute them. undeniably, there is a case be made on both sides of his issue. the false it to suggest we are deciding that issue today. we are not. i don't blame my colleagues for fighting for their constituency at the height of their ability, at the highest vocal point of their capability because issues are at their core, local and personal to each and every one of us. we are going to have to have this conversation and sorted out. not going to be

a partisan conversation. i know it is not going to be a partisan conversation. i know republicans who share my friend from new jersey's opinion. share theocrats who opinion on the senate side. we are going to sort this issue out. what i fear is that emotions are going to run so high, that we are going to miss an opportunity to figure things out. to conflate personal deductions with business deductions is to create confusion whether needs -- what it does not need to be any. everybody can deduct the meals they serve as a business expense. my family cannot deduct our meals from our income taxes. -- everythis out there business can deduct rent as business expenses. in georgia, i am unable to deduct my rent as a business expense.

that is a fundamental difference between families and businesses. there is only one taxpayer in this country. it is not walmart or apple or microsoft, it is the american consumer. we are the only ones, the buck stops with each and every american family. the debate over how to structure corporate income tax code is perfectly legitimate. personaluggest the code at the business code look different, and that is somehow nefarious, is to deny what is 100 years of income tax policy in this country. >> now that you have agreed to the fact that families will get shafted, but corporations will continue to be able to deduct their local and state taxes, this is pertinent to the budget. in the bill, the budget bill we are talking about, the

role related to changes in tax laws that may include reducing federal deductions. this is right from the budget. why do you say we are not discussing this? mr. speaker, what you hear is absolutely right. everybody is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. are accurate but they are not binding. what this is is such a personal and important issue to folks on both sides, that it got its own personal line. i can't get nominations out of the united states senate. i'm tried to step out regions in georgia. folks delaying debate, folks won't let me get my people in place. this is so important. it came with its own line. then't want to diminish

importance of this issue on either side. i want to insist that it will not be decided during this hour today. i want to insist that it will not be decided on partisan lines. i would ask of you and my friends here on the floor, we have two things we could do with our voices. sewan either so -- consensus or discontent. we are passionate about these that webut to suggest are not when to come together and sorted out, and do the best we can is to sell this institution short. and it is to further the miss information that the media sense out about us every day. we are better than that. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. time, speaker, at this

let me yield another 30 seconds. my friends great state of georgia will lose at tax induction of $9,000 to those families on average. you are concerned about that. you cannot insist that you are not. you used the word that your states are subsidizing the donor states. let me give you an idea of new jersey. states like west virginia, the average salt production line is $9,463 per household. in ohio is $10,445. isa squat -- in wisconsin it

-- >> i give the gentleman another 30 seconds. nobody wants to speak to defend this budget. jersey is 49 and getting back the money we sent to washington. who subsidizes home? -- who subsidizes whom? he says that jersey is being subsidized? these numbers do not show that. you cannot defend this. you cannot defend it under any circumstances whatsoever. you have admitted, you have admitted we are back here today. i rest my case and yield back. speaker, i yield to

minutes to the gentleman from california. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the underlying rule that would allow for consideration of the senate passed were public and budget. if passed, this budget would allow republicans to pass tractor tax time to congress without democratic support. i stand in support of attacks plan to help the middle class, that is not the tax plan we are seeing proposed republicans. instead, we see that 80% of the benefits will go to the richest 1% in this country. the problem, so that he has to pay for it. it looks like it could be the middle class. i've heard from workers worried that cuts to contributions to their 401(k) plans rude -- will ruin their retirement. will make it harder for homeowners to stay in their homes.

have heard from families worried about her appeal of the state and local tax deductions will increase their tax burden. we know that one third of the middle class will see their taxes increase under this plan. that as ourshow constituents learn more, they are realizing that this plan only cuts taxes for the wealthy and corporate interests, and leaves middle-class families kind. reuters poll released yesterday found that fewer than one third of americans support the republican tax man at all. this tax plan for the rich will increase the deficit by $2.2 trillion. who will pay for it? your children and their grandchildren. they will have to suffer from the cuts made down along the line to education, medicaid, medicare. and for what? to make the rich richer?

to line the pockets of washington special interest? that is not right. reject this budget. most support me reject this tax plan. -- most importantly, reject this tax plan. >> we've heard a lot about the analysis of tax reform. money,ho make a lot of they pay a lot more in taxes. i hope that one day my constituency takes as much as my jersey'som new constituency. if we can stimulate the economy, will have a shot at getting that done. we have to have these conversations about limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest americans if we're going to solve the issues that my friends have raised.

it is reading right out of the senate budget report, the whole purpose of considering the state and local tax deduction, and considering modifying it, eliminating it, whatever you want to insert there, is designed around limiting those tax deductions that only benefit the wealthiest among us. that only benefit the wealthiest among us. that is the conversation folks are trying to have. there is so much more that we agree on than we disagree. it appears time and time again we come to the house floor, and focus in the most shrill voices on the 20% of things that divide us, instead of the 80% of things we can come together and deliver on. tax reform does not have to pass with 50% of the senate. we've moved bills to the senate with 70 votes. economy is american

a commonsense goal that is and everyevery region political quarter. let us not make this about us here. let us make this about our bosses back home. we can and should, and i believe we will. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas. gentleman from texas is recognized. >> this bill is about one thing and one thing only. it is about lavishing tax breaks on donald trump personally, on his family, and on all of his alien or buddies. it is about lavishing tax breaks and incentives on the very same giant multinational corporations

that have shifted her weight so many american jobs, that have refused to pay there's -- their fair share by hiding their profits in offshore island tax havens. it is about doing all that, and hoping that at this time of the year they can trick the american families of the middle class into believing that a little of this tax benefits will trickle down to them. if they can do that, if they can pass this bill, they will treat themselves, the billionaires and the job exporters, they will treat themselves to tax benefits of almost astronomical proportions. to suggest there is anything bipartisan about this bill, or anything bipartisan about the tax proposal that republicans will unveil next week, is truly a farce. there is no bipartisanship here. a learned nothing from their failed health care repeal efforts. now they plan to use surprise

jack-in-the-box tactics to pop out of bill at the last minute, force it through this house, through our ways and means committee, and force it on the american people. with hallowing coming, there is a simple trick or treat test that you as an american family can use. if you are in the top 1%, you get 80% of the benefits, of the individual benefits out of this bill. look at your income. if you are not there in the $700,000 or $900,000 range, do not count on getting much benefit out of this bill. a number of studies show your taxes may actually go up, while others see a significant decline in the revenue they are asked to pay to finance our country. what about the idea of growth, of growing jobs?

growing our economy is what we should all be about. i turned to that objective source, goldman sachs, the home of the treasury secretary and top economic advisers. goldman sachs within the last month has advised its own expect mucho not out of this tax bill. any growth at the beginning will be offset by the trillions of dollars of additional debt from the same people that have been telling us for years we cannot afford another dollar for abuse afford thee cannot dollars for children's health care, because we are so worried about the national debt. there is reason to be worried about the national debt, and not to exploded by trillions of dollars giant unpaid tax bill. gentleman ane additional seconds. >> a summary of supply-side

economics is returning from the death. it did not work for bush, it did not work in the reagan era. they are bringing it back again, saying if you give a little more to those who have so much already, it will benefit everyone else. the data does not show that. this is a tax bill that needs to be rejected because it is so unfair and inequitable to the american people. this is much worse than the health care repeal its ramifications in leading to cutting medicare and social security will be far-reaching. it will not be a family in america that goes untouched. reject this budget. reject this tax bill. >> the gentlemen from georgia is recognized. >> there will be absolutely no family that goes untouched. if you would to go to the council of economic advisers webpage you can see their most recent report suggests on average $4000 in additional

wages for every wage earner in this country, every family in this country making a difference for economic growth. economic growth matters. more jobs means more pressure on labor, and it needs more wages and more income for taxes. and more income for families to put in their pocket. we are about zombies and surprises and tricks. you can tell hallowing -- halloween is right around the corner. scaring folks is the tagline of halloween. that is what you are seeing today. you have not heard of a partisan word about this tax lan from my friends on the other side. i will provide those words for my friends. i will read from yesterday's "wall street journal." in 2012, president obama proposed lowering the corporate tax rate because it it creates good jobs and wages for the

middle class folks who work in this businesses. we can argue about what the tax reform will look like, but we cannot argue about the benefit for american families of tax reform. clinton'sresident treasury secretary argued that the tax on corporate profit crease a burden without commensurate revenues for the government. changing it is as close to a free lunch for the american taxpayer as reformers will ever get. it looksgue about what like, but we cannot argue about what it is intended to do, and what leading experts believe it will do. chuck schumer and rob portman cosponsored a senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which is the highest of the 35 countries today. -- taxernational taxes

system creates incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas rather than creating jobs and economic growth here in the united states. we can fix that together, and we will fix that together. bill clinton in 2016 said he regretted raising the corporate tax rate to its current level for exactly those reasons. who is advantaged by trying to persuade the american people that something nefarious is going on here? who is advantaged by that? i don't know about my friends constituencies, but my constituents want to believe we are making things work together. they want to believe we are rolling up our sleeves and sorting things out together. my constituency was to believe we are united in making a difference for them together. we have this opportunity. concur onis role, we the underlying sentiment, we will move forward on tax reform

that will leave no american family behind. we best government program that createsrogram jobs so folks can have one. that allows wages to rise so folks can earn more. is not looking for anything on the other side of the aisle except cooperation to free up the marketplace. so folks can go make their own pathway and future forward. we can do it in ways we have not been together since 1986. who is advantaged by convincing ,olks that cooperation consensus, making a difference together is dead? i don't believe anyone. i will tell you that not just the debate, the body politic is damaged by those concerns. i hope we will join together and refute those. >> the gentleman from

massachusetts is recognized. we don't need lectures on cooperation and the partisanship. we have offered to work with republicans on tax reform and on improving the afford care act. every time they talk about rolling up their sleeves, we are not invited. are if you want the partisanship, open up this process. opec to regular order. hold hearings. this into our ideas. don't write bills in the back room and force members out here to vote up or down on them. if we want cooperation and bipartisanship, but we don't need lectures from anybody on the other side of the aisle. this has been the most closed congress in history. we don't need lectures on the importance of cooperation. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlemen from wisconsin. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to this role, because i am in opposition to the underlying budget. it is a budget buster.

it could be before the whole house for consideration tomorrow. it calls for an additional $1.5 trillion of debt accumulated in the next 10 years. that, i fear, to clear the path for unpaid tax cuts. it is a bipartisan path to move forward. it has been 31 years since we have taken a serious run at the federal code. it is long overdue. it would simplify, simplify the code that would broaden the base and make us more competitive at home, but especially abroad. it can also help promote economic growth. i fear that that is not the direction the opposing party is taking with their tax reform proposal. i say fear as we have not seen the details yet so we cannot say with certainty what exactly will be offered over the next couple weeks. if history is any guide, there is a proclivity to pass large tax cuts that are not paid for.

guide, we have been down that road before. the 1981 tax cuts. the 2001, the 2003 him of a promise to bring a boom of economic growth that offset paper lost revenue. it did not materialize. instead, we had huge budget deficits. unfortunately today, we do not have the luxury of time to help us recover from a huge this school mistake, because today 70 million 80 boomers are beginning a massive retirement and joining social security and medicare. 10,000 a day. we go down this route of going with massive tax rates that are not paid for. --re going to jeopardy is jeopardize the long-term solvency of medicare at the wrong moment in our history. folks would like to see tax reform along the lines i just described. they are not telling me they are more interested in trickle down economics with the predominant relief to the most wealthy,

hoping it somehow benefits everyone else. they would like to see a little fairness for working families, small businesses, and farmers so they can i fear we will be witnessing history repeat itself. unlike the time of the past, we don't have the luxury of time going forward without jeopardizing social security and medicare and without leaving a legacy of debt once again for our children and grandchildren to inhernt. et's regroup and do a budget that protects our children's future. this budget doesn't get us there. reject the rule and reject the budget if it comes up tomorrow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i

associate to my friend's comments. i can't disagree with the word he said until the end when he said vote against the budget. there is so much that we can do together. my friend spoke out on behalf of small businesses and family farmers. as the tax code exists today and you see charts of the benefit going to the top 1%, they are talking about small businesses and family farmers and that family that has plowed every single penny back into the business for new technology to make employees more productive or open up a new facility or more distribution. everything because they have 350 families who depend on them to make that business successful so the 350 families can put food on their table. but when the tax code is analyzed, mr. speaker, when the i.r.s. sends back the statistics, that small business

in my district that sends every single penny back into the business, they look rich. they look like they are the wealthiest and they're not. there are small family farmers and small family businesses that are trying to make a difference. and i want to say because my friend from wisconsin had a significant concern about blowing holes in deficits. as you know from your experience, one cannot pass tax reform that is permanent through reconciliation if it adds to deficits in the out years. that is what is so wonderful about this process. i support what my friend from wisconsin said about keeping an eye on deficits. i appreciate what he said making sure that social security and medicare are growing, which they do when people go back to work and folks earn more money. i don't want to be in the business of lecturing. i want to be in the business of working with my colleagues. folks have a choice, are we going to make this a day about arguing with one another or tear

something down or build something up. i stand for building something today, mr. speaker. let's build something together today. and i reserve. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: my constituents would like to see the same spirit of togetherness that we just heard about. how has that been handled in our committee and why do i call the claims of bipartisanship here a far as? well, people in texas would like to know what is the effect of our payment on property taxes. people in michigan want to know what is the effect of putting a cap of how much we can contribute to our retirement savings. other people were concerned about adding 20 cents and a

barter adjustment tax to every purchase we made from mexico, canada or elsewhere. and so since may, i have been asking for hearings on these matters. i have been asking for one single trump administration official to have the courage to come in front of our committee and answer questions about their proposal and the great gap between what president trump says one day and what they do the next. and they have refused every day. we have been here all of september, we have been here all of october. they have refused to have a single hearing with a single trump official because they plan to jam through while they yell, they plan to jam through a gift to those who are the superrich and the multi knife nationals that chip these jobs offshore and don't want any accountability for it, they don't want public involvement. they want the public to know as little as possible and that's

why they'll have it introduced this week and passed in committee the following week, forced on to this floor and the senate and the american people have to speak up and say no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say i don't want to sneak anything past anybody. i want to take full credit. i don't want anybody to confuse. it's my fault. when we get tax reform and get this economy going again, blame me. when we have the opportunity to go from worst to first in the international business community, blame me. i don't want anybody to believe there's anybody hiding here. with that, i would share with my friend from massachusetts. i do not have any further speakers. truth needs no defense, i would say to my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of the time. so, mr. speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires. and again, the gentleman from georgia mentioned the nonpartisan tax policy center in his opening remarks and his chart is based on their analysis and the top 1% get 80% of all the benefits. if you think that's fair and representing your constituents, go ahead and vote for this budget because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this. i don't think it's fair. i don't think anybody on the democratic side of the aisle think it's fair and i'm hoping some on the republican side of the aisle don't think it's fair as well. the gentleman from georgia talks about cooperation and we need to get along. who agrees with that?

but actions speak louder than words. you can't talk about open and transparent processes and as we just heard from the gentleman from texas, have the ways and means committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed doors without any help from the democrats, but not having hearings, not allowing any administration official to come up and testify. how is that an open and transparent process? how does that encourage the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? i thought my friends would have learned from their terrible experience with repeal and replace of the affordable care act. what happens when you write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without committees of jurisdiction, in that case, deliberating on what the final product should be. i thought you would have learned from that process. and you ended up failing at the end of the day. and i hope that this effort that my republican friends are now

undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people in this country, i hope that is as well. a lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. and my friends on the other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. in the rules committee, virtually almost everything is closed, everything is shut down. germane amendments are routinely denied the opportunity for members to offer them on the house floor because republicans don't want to have the debate. if you want cooperation and want bipartisan tax reform bill, then -- you just can't say it, you have to do something. in 1986, the last time congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full committee hearings spanning over a year, 26 days of markup between september and december. this time, the time line is being reported in the press maybe just a week or a little

bit more, if that. you know, and again, recent history is any indication, we might not even get that. a bill might appear one day and rushed to the floor so no one has time to read it or annualize and our constituents don't understand what is really happening here. i go back to that chart. 80%1% of the wealthiest get of the tax breaks. if you think that that's fair, then vote for this budget, because this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward. and if you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits and debt, please vote no on this budget because this allows us to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. i mean, whatever happened to deficits matter?

i guess maybe, it's inconvenient because tax cuts for billionaires matters more than deficits and passing on that debt to our kids. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, to vote no on the rule, to vote no on this budget and fight like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the republican side are pushing. this is bad policy. this is bad for our country. this is bad for middle class families and bad not only for my constituents but i would argue it's bad for your constituents. it's about time that the people's house start enacting legislation that benefit the people of this country and not just the few who are well off and well connected. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i wish coy bring school groups down

here on the house floor to help the next generation understand why we face some of the challenges that we face. we're down here today, both confronted with a tax bill that folks are certain is going to giveaway everything to everybody that they don't want it to go to. and down here confronted with the fact there is no tax bill to look at and it's going to get sprung on folks with no notice and ability to read t either one of those things could be true. it happens to be that neither of how things are true, but in the world do folks listening to this debate that we're advancing the cause of reform? deficits do matter, to my friend's point. they do mattle much the stranglehold that the obama regulatory economy created here in america on economic growth, reduced economic g.d.p. growth by a full third. by a full third. for every .1% of g.d.p. growth we talk about 200 billion additional dollars coming into the treasury over the 10-year window. the full percentage point we

lost, $2 trillion coming into the treasury. era peaker, if we had bush growth instead of obama era growth over the last five years, the budget would be balanced today. but we're where we're. and the question is, can era growth instead we do better tomorrow? we can. before i talk about that, mr. speaker, i want to recognize some of the folks who helped to get us here. my friend from massachusetts and i we come down here and carry the debate. but the work goes on behind every single one of these doors rooms, i serve on the budget committee, mr. speaker, and our staff director over there, rick, has done an amazing job shepherding this process. jenna, andy, tim flynn, robert, patrick lewis, jim pates, mary, jonathan, elise, these folks are all working day and night, weekends many times to get this product to the floor.

steve gonzalez. eric davis, robert, ellen johnson, emily, brad watson, brittany, and steve. mr. speaker, s, who don't come here because they have political passion, they come here because they have policy fashion. they want to do though things that matter. they could go anywhere they want to in town and make more money, but they stay here working for the american people because the who believe they can make a difference. and they're right. mr. speaker, they're right. they can make a difference. we can make a difference. this rule, this rule if we pass it today, mr. speaker, will allow us to concur in the senate amendment. concurring in the senate amendment does not bind us to the senate process, but it enables us to move a bill in that direction that they can process. we have seen the holdups in the senate, mr. speaker. i'm not happy about that. that's just wait senate process is.

we can do better. reconciliation allows us to do better. passing this rule enables us to do better. vote yes, mr. speaker. yes on this rule. vote yes on the underlying budget. and open yourself up to doing together what has not been done ogether in 31 years. i just don't believe we k. i believe that we will -- we can. i believe that we will. i'm excited about t i'm proud of it and ready to get to it, mr. speaker. vote yes.