[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 188 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9381-H9405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2018, will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on 
Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 1 hour 58\1/2\ minutes of debate remained 
on the bill.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) has 61 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has 57\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Nunes), a key architect of the tax reform plan, a 
leader and a champion for new business investment.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act.
  Mr. Speaker, for years, the middle class has been saddled with a 
broken Tax Code and low wages. Small businesses have been crushed by 
overly complicated rules and a higher tax burden than corporations.
  As a result, America has suffered from a self-inflicted uncompetitive 
Tax Code, lagging behind the rest of the world both in economic growth 
and job creation. Companies have fled for lower tax jurisdictions and 
more competitive business environments.
  Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act was passed, Washington has continued to 
make the Tax Code longer and more complicated, adding special interest 
loopholes and industry-specific carve-outs back into the Code year 
after year.
  This has allowed the Tax Code to dictate business decisions instead 
of letting businesses dictate business decisions.
  For the first time in 31 years, we are wiping the Tax Code clean and 
replacing it with one that is fair and simpler for everyone.
  For the better part of my career, I have advocated for a cash-flow 
tax system that would allow small businesses to expense 100 percent of 
their costs immediately. H.R. 1 contains an expensing provision that 
would give businesses the tremendous opportunity to reinvest, allowing 
them to grow their businesses and create jobs.
  The impacts for the American economy would be huge. Small businesses 
across rural California, from the small family-owned farm to the 
neighborhood restaurant and any other entrepreneur, deserve a type of 
tax system that allows them to create jobs and be able to compete on an 
equal footing globally.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to just point out to those in the 
audience, those who are watching this, that today you are going to hear 
a lot about how Republicans are giving tax breaks to millionaires and 
billionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, that is always what the left says about the Republicans. 
However, you will also hear a lot of talk about people who itemize and 
SALT deductions and how those are somehow increasing taxes on the 
middle class.
  The reality of this, Mr. Speaker, is these deductions go to 
millionaires and billionaires. So for my friends on the left, you can't 
have it both ways. You can't claim that Republicans are giving tax cuts 
to millionaires and billionaires when you are attempting to keep the 
very tax cuts called SALT, State and local tax deductions, that go to 
millionaires and billionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
Chairman Brady and all my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. 
For years, we have been working on this legislation, but this is a 
historic moment. Congress has the opportunity to positively impact 
every American by reforming our Tax Code, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, but, most importantly, it is 
a missed opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, we are taking the proposal of the Republican Party today 
and the financial architecture of our revenue system, based on their 
request, to the casino.
  Their argument is premised on one thing today, and one thing only. 
Maybe. But what about maybe not?
  This could have been done between the two parties, as we requested 
and wanted to do.
  In 1986, 450 witnesses offered testimony on tax reform, thirty 
hearings were held, and the Secretary of the Treasury attended most of 
them. The two parties found commonality in reaching an accord that was 
well received by the American people.
  What we are being asked to do here today is to raise taxes on 36 
million middle class Americans. The previous speaker, my friend from 
California, a quarter of the households in his district claim the State 
and local tax deduction, with an average of $10,000 per family. 
$10,000. So they are going to tell you today that they are giving you 
this and they are giving you that.
  Take a look at the distribution tables. That is the most certain 
opportunity for people to examine precisely what is in this 
legislation.
  A gentleman earlier this morning was heralding Alzheimer's month. 
They give Alzheimer's a tax during Alzheimer's month. For those who 
stay together with loved ones for as long as they can, they need that 
deduction that is so important to keeping that family together.
  This is the same old, same old. In 2001, tax cuts of $1.3 trillion 
all premised on maybe we will have economic growth.
  Remember the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves?
  Well, they, today, call it dynamic scoring. Now we are being asked 
again to premise the argument on maybe there will be enough growth to 
generate some return on revenue.
  In 2003, another $1.3 trillion in terms of a tax cut was offered with 
no or slow economic growth.
  And the granddaddy of them all, in 2005, how about repatriation?
  Foreign earnings were brought back at 5\1/4\ percent, all based upon 
the idea that there was going to be widespread broad-based hiring.

[[Page H9382]]

  What did we discover in the aftermath of that?
  Almost 20,000 layoffs in the weeks after it. The money was used for 
stock buybacks and dividends with no employment gains across the 
country.
  They keep telling us: Well, you are going to get 3 percent, 4 
percent, 5 percent, and the President says 6 percent growth.
  I want to find that economist who says we are going to get 6 percent 
growth.
  Most projections are that we are being asked here today to 
participate in the following, because this is the context of the 
argument this morning: They are borrowing $2.3 trillion over 10 years 
for the purpose of giving a tax cut to people at the very top of our 
economic system.
  We should be investing in human capital, community colleges, 
vocational education, internship programs, and aligning the American 
people with the skill sets that are necessary, as the Department of 
Labor reported this week, for the 6 million jobs that are available. 
That is the most gainful way to do long-term investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would note that a family of four 
in Massachusetts' First District will see a tax cut of nearly $2,000 
under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins), one of our key leaders on the Ways and Means Committee who is 
really all in on growth and savings for America.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as a CPA and a member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, reforming our Tax Code has been a priority of mine during my 
entire service here in Congress.
  Our current Tax Code is broken, and I have heard from thousands of 
Kansans in my district who are frustrated with the status quo.
  This legislation will not only reform our broken Tax Code, but it 
will permanently lower rates for hardworking individuals, families, and 
businesses while retaining or expanding many popular provisions, such 
as the dependent care assistance program. It also includes strong 
safeguards that keep the wealthy from gaming the system in an effort to 
pay less than their fair share.
  On average, this legislation will help provide tax relief for all 
income groups across the board. If you don't believe me, read the 
analysis from the Tax Foundation and the Joint Committee on Taxation. 
They agree.
  While individuals and families receive a much-needed tax break, they 
will also notice that their wages are going up and more jobs are being 
created.
  Just the other day, AT&T announced they will be making a substantial 
investment in the United States once we enact tax reform.
  Folks are tired of the status quo. They are tired of a Tax Code that 
is confusing. Once figured out, you realize that it actually penalizes 
hard work and success.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act accomplishes our goals of ensuring that 
rates are cut for low- and middle-income Americans, simplifying the tax 
system and expanding American competition within the global economy.
  This is a rare opportunity to enact the kind of legislation that our 
constituents need and deserve to grow the economy and put more money in 
the pockets of hardworking Kansans.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the entire committee for their 
good work on this important legislation.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has a long and distinguished history in this 
Congress and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

                              {time}  0930

  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
all of his work he has done over the years.
  The Republican tax bill is built on massive deception. The deception 
is that, as the Speaker put it: ``The focus is on middle class tax 
relief.'' That is simply not true.
  As the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said, roughly one out 
of every four Americans with income between $50,000 and $100,000 would 
pay higher taxes in 2023, far overshadowing the $1,000 or so for other 
families. In 2019, those earning over $1 million would get an average 
tax cut of $73,000.
  Even as modified in last-minute desperation, the wealthiest would 
receive 90 percent of the new tax break for so-called passthrough 
income.
  Another deception is that tax breaks pay for themselves. On this, 
some people may have been in the past fooled once, fewer twice, but 
none thrice.
  A further deception is that exploding the deficit and national debt 
to $1.7 trillion will disappear as it promotes growth. Not only is this 
a 180-degree Republican turn, but it threatens Medicare and other 
critical programs and will worsen the vast inequalities in income and 
wealth in America.
  It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. In this case, 
Republican political necessity is the mother of desperation and 
deception.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a note that the average 
family of four in Michigan's Ninth District will receive a tax cut of 
over $1,700.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Holding), one of our key leaders on the Ways and Means Committee, 
who serves on the Tax Policy Subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to support this 
historic bill that will put our economy back on the path to stable and 
sustained growth.
  This bill finally levels the playing field and restores the global 
competitiveness of American businesses by moving to a territorial 
system. This key aspect of our bill removes the punitive barriers of 
the current worldwide system and allows companies to reinvest their 
overseas profits in America, without fear of getting hit with an 
excessive tax burden. This important change ensures that America 
remains the best place to start, grow, or invest in a business.
  As companies begin to see the benefits of this new territorial 
system, I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to 
explore ways to move toward a residency-based taxation system to ensure 
that American citizens have a level playing field around the global as 
well.
  I have heard from companies, American companies, that say as they 
expand their operations overseas, the Tax Code has made it prohibitive 
for them to hire Americans for these jobs. In fact, our current system 
of citizenship-based taxation makes Americans nearly 40 percent more 
expensive to employ overseas than their foreign counterparts.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for his understanding of 
this issue and look forward to our continued work to ensure that 
talent, not tax burden, is the driving factor in the hiring decisions 
of multinational companies.
  I am proud to support this bill. I look forward to it growing the 
economy and ensuring businesses of all sizes have the capital necessary 
to hire more employees, grow their operation, and give Americans the 
raise they deserve.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Holding) for his leadership on this issue, in particular, 
about international competitiveness for our workers. Residence-based 
taxation is an idea we should continue to explore. We will continue to 
work on this issue with him as leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has the highest professional and personal 
esteem of every Member of this institution.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. 
Neal, for yielding.
  I rise with a heavy heart to join him in opposing this mean-spirited, 
reckless bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, I was elected to fight for and to serve 
the people of my district. Today, they are calling and begging for us 
to slow down and to do this the right way. In their heart of hearts, 
the public knows that the safety net will be used to pay for this 
reckless corporate tax cut.
  Taxpayers know that this shameful deal destroys the hopes and dreams 
of

[[Page H9383]]

too many as it robs poor Peter to pay wealthy Paul. That is not right. 
That is not fair. That is not just.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot hide the truth from the sick, the elderly, 
the disabled for whom this bill may mean life or death. You cannot hide 
the truth from the middle class, working, and immigrant families who 
need every penny to make ends meet. You cannot hide the truth from 
teachers who try to lend a helping hand to students who struggle to get 
an education.
  I, for one, refuse to hide the truth about this bill's attack on the 
separation of church and State.
  Mr. Speaker, as we abandon our constitutional duty and sacrifice our 
moral authority, I fear that history will not be kind to any of us.
  In another time, in another period, Members of Congress came together 
in a bipartisan fashion. They met, debated, and passed a tax bill that 
served the best interest of all people--not just a select few. They 
took their time. They did it right, and we should be doing it right.
  Today, the Record must reflect the sad truth of this missed 
opportunity. H.R. 1 steals from our veterans, our seniors, our 
children, and from generations yet unborn All taxpayers expect, demand, 
and deserve better--much better--than legislation which would put 
politics before the good of the people.

  This bill is a shame, a disgrace, and honestly, Mr. Speaker, it 
breaks my heart. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the 
average family of four in the Fifth District of Georgia will see a tax 
cut of $1,484.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bishop), one of the new members of the Ways and Means Committee who has 
really been a leader for families, small businesses, and industry.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for 
yielding, for his steadfast leadership, and for giving me the 
opportunity to be a part of this incredible opportunity on behalf of 
this great country.
  Tax reform is about giving hardworking Americans of all walks of life 
the confidence they need to make their dreams a reality. So the 
question that needs to be asked is whether or not the current Tax Code, 
and all of its targeted tax credits, really increases people's 
paychecks. Does it treat people fairly? Does it put American workers 
first?
  What about fostering economic growth? Does it help create more good-
paying jobs? On that subject, I think Michigan is a great case study, 
my home State of Michigan. You see, I am from the Motor City where we 
are known for our blue-collar work ethic. Our families come from humble 
beginnings. They get up every morning and go to work to make ends meet 
to build a better life for their family and for their kids. We 
persevered through some pretty serious economic death spirals, I must 
say, and I would refer back to 2008 as an example.
  More than 8,000 people left our State. Just think about that. We are 
the only State in the Union to lose population--and more would have 
left if they had a chance to sell their homes.
  At the time, I was the Senate majority leader in Michigan under the 
last administration, overseeing the only Republican branch of 
government. I saw firsthand how the administration pursued targeted tax 
credits, one after the other, that favored one industry over the other. 
It was a classic example of government picking winners over losers, and 
as expected, it failed miserably.
  As we see at the Federal level today, in Michigan, these targeted tax 
benefits were paid for by everyone else in the form of tax increases, 
and not only did it fail to attract growth in emerging sectors as they 
had hoped, but it caused our economy to go into a tailspin, a very 
serious tailspin.
  Michigan quickly became the only State in the country experiencing 
zero economic growth. Per capita income fell for the first time. It was 
one of the highest to begin with, and just a few years later, it was 
one of the lowest. By 2009, unemployment hit a record high of 15 
percent. Neighboring States that had more hospitable environments for 
good job growth attracted our families and our neighbors.
  As I said, we are the only State in the Union to lose population. But 
as Senate majority leader at that time of the only Republican branch of 
government, we didn't just say no to the government's failed policies. 
We offered solutions and loaded up the pipeline with legislation to 
help the newly elected Republican legislature and Governor Rick Snyder 
get the job done.
  What did we do? We did exactly what we are doing here today. We 
started with tax reform. While balancing budgets, we found ways to 
lower rates on individuals, reduce baseline rates for job creators, and 
eliminate tax credits that favored certain industries over others.
  Michigan created an environment that grew the economy and helped 
families get ahead. Sure enough, just 2 months after these reforms 
happened, job growth turned positive again in Michigan.
  Today, in Michigan, we are a top 10 probusiness State and ranked 12th 
among all States for overall business climate. Unemployment is the 
lowest it has been in my home district of 3.3 percent, in Livingston 
County.
  Detroit is re-emerging again as an economic powerhouse. The streets 
are alive with entrepreneurs and young people finally living downtown. 
The future looks great for the comeback city.
  The moral of this story is tax reform, but it is not just about tax 
cuts. It is about real reform to a broken system. Getting tax reform 
done right means delivering real relief, and I have seen it firsthand 
in Michigan.
  I know it can happen at the national level. It is not rocket science. 
It is about giving people back more that is rightfully theirs. It is 
about freeing up more capital to create more jobs, increase wages, and 
compete at the global level. This is how you grow an economy from the 
ground up.
  Mr. Speaker, let's vote for our constituents today. Do it for the 
middle-income family of four or the struggling mom. Let's pass this 
bill today. It has been 31 years. It is time for relief. It is long 
overdue.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, under the Republican tax bill, 570,000 
Michigan households earning less than $160,000 a year will see a tax 
hike.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee, whose 
admonitions to all of us should be something we could all rally around.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
reckless and fiscally irresponsible bill that is going to add $2.3 
trillion to our national debt.
  There is a reason why airports, universities, the Fraternal Order of 
Police, home builders, and veterans groups are opposed to this bill. It 
is because it will increase taxes on tens of millions of middle class 
families. That is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  One of the most heartless provisions would make it harder for middle 
class families to rebuild after disaster. When you vote today, you are 
telling the survivors of the California fires that you don't care about 
them or about the middle class families in your district who one day 
may face a tornado or a hurricane--all to save a few dollars so that we 
can give a tax break to corporations.

  We have a chance today to reject this bill, to come together, hold 
hearings, and hear from experts--something that wasn't done when the 
Republicans wrote this bill.
  We can take ideas from both side of the aisle and write a tax bill 
that helps middle class working families. Let's reject this bill and 
work on real tax reform that will not raise taxes on the middle class 
and won't add $2.3 trillion--that is with a T--to our national debt.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the average family 
of four in California's Fifth District will see a tax cut of $2,300.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Curbelo), who has been an advocate not only for Floridians but Puerto 
Rico and a number of our families and communities around the country.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  This crucial legislation before us today marks the first time in 31 
years that Congress has considered a major overhaul to the current Tax 
Code that

[[Page H9384]]

is overly cumbersome, wildly outdated, and riddled with special-
interest loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there is a great deal of frustration and 
anxiety in our country. I truly believe it is due to the fact that the 
economic recovery has not reached every household. Throughout south 
Florida, I hear from families and small businesses who are worried 
about saving for their kids' college or making payroll.
  While the stock market is humming and unemployment is low, wages have 
been stagnant, and the so-called recovery has left way too many people 
behind.

                              {time}  0945

  That is why this bill is so important.
  This legislation will collapse and lower current tax rates to ensure 
a typical middle-income family in south Florida will receive about 
$1,500 in tax relief. For married couples, it doubles the standard 
deduction from $12,000 to $24,000, drastically simplifying the process 
of filing taxes each year for over 90 percent of Americans while 
allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money.
  The bill also expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,600 per 
child, a benefit that will be seen by 43,768 taxpayers in Florida's 
26th District, while we are also making it easier to save for college 
by expanding 529 plans to cover more expenses, including apprenticeship 
programs. All these benefits will directly help alleviate the 
increasing cost of raising a family.
  On the business side, this bill gives American companies of all 
sizes, especially our smaller enterprises and entrepreneurs, a chance 
to compete and win in the new globalized economy. By providing 
businesses with lower tax rates, we will make it easier for job 
creators to invest here at home and increase paychecks for American 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, as a proud Member of the Ways and Means Committee, I 
commend Chairman Brady, his staff, and the Members of this House who 
will soon support this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure we 
provide all Americans, especially the most vulnerable, the opportunity 
to find their economic success.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Brady for working with me to 
begin addressing the important issue of helping our fellow American 
citizens in Puerto Rico. After the devastating effects of Hurricanes 
Irma and Maria, our committee delivered immediate results for the 
island through a disaster tax relief package targeted to help people 
get back on their feet.
  While it will take at least months for the island to fully recover, 
we are providing even more assistance to Puerto Rico with the 
legislation being considered today.
  I want to thank Chairman Brady for helping us extend the rum cover-
over to $13.25 per proof gallon to be paid back to the treasuries of 
both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through 2023. I am also 
grateful that under this bill, companies operating in Puerto Rico can 
deduct income attributable to domestic production activities 
retroactively for the year 2017.
  Moving forward, I am hopeful we can work together to find creative 
solutions to better target the child tax credit to serve more Puerto 
Rico families and study the expanded use of the earned income tax 
credit for the Commonwealth. In addition, I look forward to continuing 
to work on solutions to ensure the businesses operating on the island 
have the certainty they need in terms of tax planning to hire more 
workers and strengthen Puerto Rico's economy.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, 22,000 constituents of the gentleman from 
Miami's district will eventually face the Alzheimer's tax increase that 
is included in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson), who is a neighbor, a really nice guy, and a very thoughtful 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I include in 
the Record, first a letter from the Commissioner of Revenue Services in 
the State of Connecticut, who has detailed out the impact of this tax 
on Connecticut residents.

                                                 November 8, 2017.
     Hon. John B. Larson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Larson: Thank you for opportunity to 
     comment on the federal tax changes being considered in H.R. 
     1. We appreciate your leadership in trying to set the record 
     straight as this partisan effort is rushed to judgment with 
     no real input and much fiscal uncertainty.
       Unfortunately, what we see so far from a national and state 
     perspective is very troubling. Some of the proposals to 
     reduce taxes on corporate and pass-through business income 
     could provide needed economic stimulus nationally and for 
     states like Connecticut. Unfortunately, on balance, H.R. 1 is 
     fundamentally flawed:
       Even the low estimate of a $1.5 trillion cost is not paid 
     for and is really massive federal tax deficit spending. The 
     nation has been down this road before and surely we should 
     have learned something from the worst economic recession in 
     modern times.
       Otherwise unaffordable tax cuts have long been part of a 
     political strategy to ``starve the beast.'' Due to its long 
     term unfunded cost, this Republican tax plan will compel big 
     cuts in federal funding, such as Medicaid, that are important 
     to states like Connecticut.
       Contrary to all the talk of a ``middle income tax cut,'' 
     the plan actually represents a huge windfall to the very 
     wealthiest federal taxpayers and is truly regressive. For our 
     own state of Connecticut, over 75% of the tax cut goes to the 
     top 1% who would pay 8.5% less on average. Everyone else 
     would see a trivial 1.2% reduction in federal tax liability 
     and many will actually owe much more in federal income taxes.
       As discussed more specifically below, the proposed plan 
     shifts most of the tax cost and the least of any tax benefit 
     to states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast 
     regions of the country. Thus, Connecticut and similar states 
     will even more disproportionately pay in federal taxes far 
     more than is received in federal benefits--further 
     subsidizing regions of the country where states make far less 
     of a state and local tax effort.
       Drilling down a bit further, several aspects of this 
     partisan plan will hit especially hard:
       Eliminating deductibility of state income tax paid is worth 
     an estimated $8.7 billion to mostly middle income Connecticut 
     taxpayers.
       Capping deductibility of local property tax paid at $10,000 
     will increase federal income taxes for a significant 
     proportion of Connecticut taxpayers who claim $4.9 billion.
       Any benefit to lower and lower moderate income taxpayers 
     from higher standard deductions and child care credits will 
     likely be more than offset by the shell game of imposing a 
     higher lowest rate bracket of 12% and replacing the current 
     $4,050 personal exemption with a $300 deduction that is 
     proposed to end in 5 years.
       Eliminating deductibility of medical/dental expenses will 
     be $1.6 billion hardship for Connecticut taxpayers at all 
     levels who are out of work and have catastrophic medical 
     costs.
       Eliminating deductibility of student loan interest only 
     adds a further financial burden for primarily younger 
     taxpayers and their families already struggling with 
     educational indebtedness.
       Sadly, these and many other significant issues of fiscal 
     irresponsibility and tax unfairness seem to be of no concern 
     in the partisan rush to pass legislation before taxpayers see 
     through the slogans and realize the costs. Indeed, glimpses 
     of what may be in the Republican Senate version suggests that 
     it will only get worse. Thank you for your efforts to speak 
     out for our Connecticut taxpayers and set the record 
     straight.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kevin B. Sullivan,
                                                     Commissioner.

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

                           MIDDLE CLASS CUTS

             Ms. Diane Hebenstreit--West Hartford, CT 06107

       I am a lifetime resident of Connecticut, and I ask that you 
     do not vote for the proposed Federal Tax plan. From what I 
     see, it's providing large tax breaks that benefit the rich 
     and the corporations.
       The estate tax benefit we have now is more than generous, 
     only the very wealthy will benefit from repealing the estate 
     tax.
       The proposed caps on state and property tax deductions 
     combined with the increased standard deduction, will cause 
     myself as well as others to use the standard deduction 
     instead of itemizing. This will eliminate the financial 
     benefit of owning my home, and I am concerned it will 
     negatively affect its value.
       The personal exemption of $4,050 is going away. This is not 
     something that's been highlighted in the news. So as a single 
     payer, I'll receive a $12,000 standard deduction, but loose 
     the $4,050 personal exemption resulting in more of my income 
     being taxed than under the current plan.
       And at a higher rate! I am currently in the 10% tax 
     bracket. Under this new plan it will increase to 12%.
       This is not a tax plan that benefits me, or I expect any 
     other middle income resident. Vote No.

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a

[[Page H9385]]

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

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

       Heidi Przybyla, USA Today: This economic growth that you 
     all are promising, it cannot happen unless the cuts occur at 
     the same time. In fact the Joint Committee on Taxation's 
     economic model assumes that the type of tax cuts that you're 
     doing now that are not paid for could actually be a drag on 
     economic growth. Can you please speak to that?
       Brady: The reason we moved back towards a balanced budget 
     is one, there is substantial growth, miss, but again, that 
     won't do it. You have to simplify the code, eliminate so much 
     of these special breaks on the business and the individual 
     side as well. It's the combination of both of those that gets 
     you back to a balanced budget over time. That's why people 
     complain `Look you're really simplifying the code 
     dramatically, there's a lot of things that go'. Not everyone 
     is happy about that but that is what, sort of the tough 
     choices you have to make, along with growth, to make sure 
     this moves us toward a balanced budget.
       Przybyla: But that is not what's happening here. This is 
     still, regardless of these loopholes that you're closing, 
     it's still a big blowhole in the deficit and that is not what 
     the model was in '86 for instance when Reagan did it. This 
     model that I'm speaking of still assumes that this could be a 
     drag on economic growth because you're not doing the type of 
     spending cuts, not just simplification in the code, but 
     spending cuts.
       Brady: Here, one, there are a number of models on growth 
     and I'm sure there will be a healthy debate, that's a good 
     thing. What we know is this dramatically grows the economy in 
     revenues not just here in Washington, but state and local 
     levels as well. But you make a great point: tax reform alone, 
     alone won't get us to a balanced budget, we have to have 
     spending constraints along with that. As I know, as House 
     Republicans, we are turning toward welfare reform and how we 
     tackle our entitlements in a way to save them. That's all 
     part of the steps it takes to get us back to a fiscally 
     responsible area. But I do know this, is you want to see 
     continued deficits and debts, just stay with a slow growth 
     economy like we saw the last ten years. We know what that 
     produced.

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


                                                         AARP,

                                                November 15, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and all 
     Americans age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express our 
     views on H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. AARP, with its 
     nearly 38 million members in all 50 States and the District 
     of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, represents 
     individuals affected by H.R. 1 in myriad ways. As we did with 
     the last major effort at tax reform a generation ago, AARP is 
     prepared to support tax legislation that makes the tax code 
     more equitable and efficient, promotes growth, and produces 
     sufficient revenue to pay for critical national programs, 
     including Medicare and Medicaid. However, H.R. 1 in its 
     current form does not meet these criteria.
       Efforts to restructure all or part of the federal tax 
     system should in particular recognize the importance of--and 
     therefore maintain--incentives for health and retirement 
     security. Such incentives are not only important to assist 
     individuals in attaining the security they deserve, but are 
     vital to our nation's future economic well-being AARP is 
     dedicated to enhancing retirement security, including 
     retention of the extra standard deduction for those ages 65 
     or older; improving access to, and targeted incentives for, 
     work-place retirement saving plans, and protection of earned 
     pensions for vulnerable retirees and their families. We 
     greatly appreciate that H.R. 1 rejects proposals to make 
     significant changes to the tax treatment of retirement 
     contributions, which would have affected the ability or 
     commitment of many tax filers to save for their retirement. 
     AARP also remains committed to advocating for affordable, 
     meaningful health care, including retention of the medical 
     expense itemized deduction at 7.5%, preservation of tax 
     exempt status of employer sponsored insurance coverage; 
     maintenance of tax subsidies for lower- and moderate-income 
     Americans to purchase health insurance coverage in health 
     care marketplaces; and the creation of a new, non-refundable 
     tax credit for working family caregivers.
       As tax legislation advances, changes to the tax code should 
     not result in a disproportionate, adverse impact on older 
     Americans According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), 
     H.R. 1 will reduce taxes for millions of taxpayers beginning 
     in 2019. We are concerned, however, that in 2027, also 
     according to JCT, the 73 million taxpayers with incomes 
     between $10,000 and $50,000 would collectively pay $2.9 
     billion more in individual income taxes AARP has estimated 
     that H.R. 1 will increase taxes on 1.2 million taxpayers age 
     65 and older in 2018, and by 2027, 4.9 million older 
     taxpayers will experience higher taxes In addition, H.R. 1 
     will provide no tax relief for 5.1 million older taxpayers in 
     2018 and 5.3 million taxpayers by 2027.
       The impact on older tax filers is the cumulative result of 
     many policy changes made in H.R. 1, but a number of specific 
     provisions disproportionately affect older Americans. Nearly 
     three-quarters of tax filers who claim the medical expense 
     deduction are age 50 or older and live with a chronic 
     condition or illness. Seventy percent of filers who claim 
     this deduction have income below $75,000. H.R. 1 also 
     eliminates the additional standard deduction for filers who 
     are 65 and older, while at the same time increasing the 
     lowest tax rate. These provisions, along with other proposals 
     that more broadly affect the tax liability of millions of 
     filers, such as the expiration of the new Family Flexibility 
     Credit in 2023, and the partial repeal of the state and local 
     tax deduction, result in little tax benefit to many older tax 
     filers, and for others, a tax increase.
       Also troubling is the negative effect H.R. 1 will have on 
     the nation's ability to fund critical priorities. H.R. 1 will 
     increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next ten 
     years, and an unknown amount beyond 2027. The large increase 
     in the deficit will inevitably lead to calls for greater 
     spending cuts, which are likely to include dramatic cuts to 
     Medicare, Medicaid and other critical programs serving older 
     Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has now published 
     a letter stating that unless Congress takes action, H.R. 1 
     will result in automatic federal funding cuts of $136 billion 
     in fiscal year 2018, $25 billion of which must come from 
     Medicare.
       We urge Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact 
     tax legislation that better meets the needs of older 
     Americans and the nation, and we stand ready to work with you 
     toward that end.
           Sincerely,

                                             Nancy A. LeaMond,

                                      Executive Vice President and
                            Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.

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

                                      Congressional Budget Office,


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Democratic Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for 
     information about the effects of legislation that would raise 
     deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027 
     period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or 
     cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO; Public Law 111-
     139).
       The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during 
     a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated 
     deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 
     required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report 
     the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in 
     estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and 
     ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in 
     the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to 
     eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a 
     sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the 
     necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB.
       CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that 
     would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year 
     window, without enacting any further legislation to offset 
     that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would 
     record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard, 
     showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150 
     billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of 
     the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current 
     balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a 
     positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the 
     balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion 
     debit.)
       Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset 
     that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's 
     impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate 
     the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to 
     issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the 
     session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by 
     the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law 
     limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or 
     roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111 
     billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory 
     accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large 
     accounts including low-income programs and social security, 
     the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is, 
     in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion, 
     significantly less than the amount that would be required to 
     be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to 
     automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the 
     Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https://
go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.)
       Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the 
     estimated amount of available resources in each year over the 
     next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB 
     would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay 
     reductions required by the PAYGO law.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Keith Hall,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by preempting

[[Page H9386]]

our distinguished chairman and, for the Record, state that a middle 
class family in the State of Connecticut, from West Hartford, with a 
combined income of $125,000, with a mortgage and a kid in college, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and to the Department of 
Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, will see a tax increase 
of $767 next year.
  Then with the clever clawback provision--that Grover Norquist kind of 
clawback provision that gives with one hand and takes away with the 
other--in 2023, that hardworking family in the middle class will see a 
$1,667 increase.
  So why are we here?
  It is pretty easy to figure out this. These are honorable people, but 
sometimes they are called upon to do a political task, or as Mr. 
Collins put it: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't 
ever call me again.''
  Speaking of New York, my colleagues in New York and New Jersey, 
because we are donor States and because we make itemized deductions, we 
find ourselves in the situation where we are paying double taxation.
  Don't take our word for it. Just ask a member of your own caucus. Ask 
Peter King, who describes this as the most massive redistribution of 
wealth at the expense of teachers, machinists, and people who are of 
the professional class whom you have found that you want to tax their 
success.
  But what adds insult to injury above all else, aside from being a 
donor State and double taxation, is the cruelest cut. We take a Pledge 
of Allegiance. We pledge allegiance to the Constitution. But some of 
you pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist. In doing so, you want to make 
sure that you can shrink Social Security and Medicare up so small you 
can drown it in the bathtub.
  That is what this does: $25 billion will come out of that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would 
note that families in Connecticut's First District will see an average 
tax cut of $3,858 and grow jobs by 11,000 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. Curbelo, you and Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon have been 
tireless advocates for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I appreciate 
the hard work you have done to help our fellow citizens on the island. 
I agree, this tax reform bill is a good first step, and I look forward 
to working with you on ideas to best serve the people on this island.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for that.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer), who is one of the most thoughtful Members of 
Congress, a leader in the field of renewable energy, and my friend
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 17 
environmental organizations opposing this legislation.

                                                 November 8, 2017.
       Dear Representative, on behalf of our millions of members 
     and activists, we write to urge you to oppose the Republican 
     leadership's tax legislation, the misnamed Tax Cuts and Jobs 
     Act (H.R. 1). This plan would lavish huge and permanent tax 
     cuts to the richest 1% and corporate polluters that are 
     destined to be paid for by the health and environmental well-
     being of communities across the country. The bill's debt-
     busting tax cuts for the wealthiest are sure to mean deep 
     cuts to federal and state programs and safeguards that 
     protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife that benefit 
     people across this country every day. The plan puts at risk 
     our clean energy future by preserving tax breaks for dirty 
     energy sources while slashing them for cleaner forms of 
     energy. And if the tax plan itself weren't harmful enough, it 
     is also being packaged in the Senate with unrelated, 
     controversial legislation that hands over the pristine and 
     sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploitation by Big 
     Oil.
       This plan steers most of its tax breaks to the wealthiest 
     people in this country and corporations and adds at least 
     $1.5 trillion to the deficit. Americans across the country 
     will suffer because those tax cuts are likely to be paid for 
     by slashing services and safeguards that our government 
     provides, from healthcare to education to environmental 
     protection. The health of communities across the nation will 
     suffer if the Environmental Protection Agency is further 
     hampered in its mission to protect public health and hold 
     polluters accountable for violating laws like the Clean Air 
     Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The people who work in and 
     benefit from America's thriving outdoor recreational economy 
     will take a hit if the national parks and other lands 
     stewarded by the Department of the Interior are forced to 
     suffer further cuts because of this reckless tax plan.
       This tax plan also steers our nation's energy policy in the 
     wrong direction by leaving in place the vast majority of 
     existing tax preferences for polluting industries like oil, 
     gas, coal and nuclear and reducing, phasing-out, and 
     eliminating incentives for cleaner sources of energy. 
     Permanent tax breaks for fossil fuels dwarf those for 
     renewables by a margin of 7:1, yet this bill would suddenly 
     eliminate the tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle, 
     disrupt the wind industry by reducing the credit for future 
     projects by a third and placing into jeopardy the eligibility 
     of existing projects, and eliminate the commercial solar 
     investment credit. While some clean energy technology credits 
     are reintroduced, they, too, are set to phase out. Meanwhile, 
     oil companies will receive a new billion dollar hand out 
     while only the smallest of existing preferences for fossil 
     fuels are eliminated--leaving more than $14 billion in 
     permanent annual federal subsidies untouched. Despite 
     rhetoric from GOP leaders that the tax code shouldn't pick 
     winners and losers, this bill very clearly picks polluting 
     energy sectors as winners yet again, putting at risk the 
     impressive growth of clean energy and robbing us and our 
     children of a cleaner future.
       The GOP leadership's plan is to package this tax 
     legislation in the Senate with unrelated, controversial 
     legislation that would open up the iconic Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This legislation would 
     irreversibly damage one of America's greatest wild places and 
     is only being included in a desperate attempt to secure 
     enough votes in the Senate for tax cuts for corporations and 
     the wealthiest Americans. The Arctic Refuge's spectacular 
     landscape of rugged mountains, boreal forests, and wild 
     rivers supports more than 250 species including polar and 
     brown bears, musk oxen, and birds that migrate from all 50 
     states and 6 continents each year. The indigenous Gwich'in 
     people call the refuge's coastal plain ``The Sacred Place 
     Where Life Begins,'' an area that serves as the calving 
     grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd which they rely on as 
     a primary source of food, and for cultural and spiritual 
     needs. This provision is being included in an attempt to 
     generate $1 billion in government revenue to pay for the 
     package's tax cuts for the wealthy, but multiple analyses 
     show that it is unlikely to raise anywhere close to that 
     amount. In short, including drilling in the Arctic Refuge in 
     the tax legislation is both environmentally and fiscally 
     irresponsible.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and instead 
     work together on legislation that will truly benefit our 
     communities, power our economy with clean, renewable energy, 
     and protect the environment that we all depend upon for our 
     health and well-being.
           Sincerely,
         350.org, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological 
           Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, 
           Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, 
           Hip Hop Caucus, League of Conservation Voters, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, 
           Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, 
           Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for Progress.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is going to be on Capitol 
Hill rallying Republicans to vote for his tax bill perfectly designed 
for his benefit: eliminating the alternative minimum tax, one of the 
few ways he pays any tax at all; abolishing the inheritance tax, 
allowing him to pass on tax-free hundreds of millions of dollars to his 
family; and expanding access to the lower passthrough tax rates for 
many large and profitable businesses. Donald Trump lists hundreds of 
passthrough entities on his financial forms.
  Donald Trump is the king of debt, and this monstrosity of a tax bill 
is fueled by increasing the national debt $2.3 trillion and cutting 
taxes for the wealthy financed by increased debt burden on our children 
and grandchildren.
  Of course, details are starting to leak out, such as special deals 
for baseball teams. Breaking a bipartisan commitment to the wind energy 
industry is already causing their stock prices to fall, jeopardizing 
billions of dollars of projects and putting tens of thousands of jobs 
at risk with the only retroactive provision in the bill breaking a 
bipartisan commitment that many of us worked on with the energy 
industry.
  The Republican proposal showers riches on the wealthiest Americans 
and most profitable corporations who are not going to create jobs and 
raise wages. What they are going to do is buy things and make more 
money. What is going to happen is that, in the years ahead, taxes are 
going to rise for millions of Americans and even more in the future.

[[Page H9387]]

  Now, this tax perhaps has the most cruel element--what I call the 
Alzheimer's tax--repealing the medical expense deduction used by over 9 
million middle class Americans who saved almost $90 billion in 2015--
gone.
  This stunning action places additional burdens on many elderly and 
vulnerable middle-income Americans trying to plan ahead for the 
crushing financial burden dealing with Alzheimer's. We never had a 
hearing on anything like this. It wouldn't stand the light of day. The 
American public will be cranky about this.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that families 
of four, the average family in Oregon's Third District, will see a tax 
cut of $2,200.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling), who is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee 
and a dear friend of mine.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, for almost a decade, Americans suffered 
under Obamanomics. Their savings remain decimated, their paychecks were 
stagnant, and their American dreams were diminished.
  But, Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned. Under the leadership of 
President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Chairman Brady, we are on the 
precipice of passing a fairer, flatter, simpler, and more competitive 
Tax Code, one built for 3-plus percent economic growth.
  The American people can now imagine a Tax Code that brings jobs and 
capital back to America. They can imagine a Tax Code that is simplified 
from 70,000 pages to 500, where 90 percent of Americans can fill out 
their return on a postcard. They can imagine a Tax Code swept of all 
the special interest loopholes. They can imagine a Tax Code creating 
lower rates for working Americans and small businesses, and they can 
now imagine a Tax Code that is all about economic growth.
  All my friends on the other side of the aisle can offer is the 
politics of division, envy, and class warfare.
  I am proud to support the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it is all 
about better jobs, fair taxes, and bigger paychecks.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, 17,000 people in Mr. Hensarling's district 
will now pay higher interest on their student loan deductions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind), who is a great advocate for the heartland of America.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, of all the policy changes that are being 
recommended in this legislation before us today, the one that scares me 
the most is the repeal of the so-called Johnson amendment.
  The Johnson amendment basically says: If you are a religious 
organization or a nonprofit and if you engage in partisan political 
activity, you lose your tax-exempt status.
  Repealing that has the potential of politicizing the pulpit 
nationwide. In fact, 103 religious organizations, 4,200 faith-based 
leaders in this country, and 5,500 nonprofits have written a letter to 
every Member of Congress telling us: Don't do this.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.

     Updated November 1, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Senate Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader 
     Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch, 
     Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: We, the 103 
     undersigned religious and denominational organizations 
     strongly oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections 
     that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of 
     worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 
     Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity 
     of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.
       Religious leaders often use their pulpits to address the 
     moral and political issues of the day. They also can, in 
     their personal capacities and without the resources of their 
     houses of worship, endorse and oppose political candidates. 
     Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any issue, 
     host candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives, 
     encourage people to vote, help transport people to the polls 
     and even, with a few boundaries, lobby on specific 
     legislation and invite candidates to speak. Tax-exempt houses 
     of worship may not, however, endorse or oppose candidates or 
     use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to candidates' 
     campaigns. Current law simply limits groups from being both a 
     tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity.
       As religious organizations, we oppose any attempt to weaken 
     the current protections offered by the 501(c)(3) campaign 
     intervention prohibition because:
       People of faith do not want partisan political fights 
     infiltrating their houses of worship. Houses of worship are 
     spaces for members of religious communities to come together, 
     not be divided along political lines; faith ought to be a 
     source of connection and community, not division and discord. 
     Indeed, the vast majority of Americans do not want houses of 
     worship to issue political endorsements. Particularly in 
     today's political climate, such endorsements would be highly 
     divisive and would have a detrimental impact on civil 
     discourse.
       Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship. If 
     houses of worship endorse candidates, their prophetic voice, 
     their ability to speak truth to power as political outsiders, 
     is threatened. The credibility and integrity of congregations 
     would suffer with bad decisions of candidates they endorsed. 
     Tying America's houses of worship to partisan activity 
     demeans the institutions from which so many believers expect 
     unimpeachable decency.
       Current law protects the independence of houses of worship. 
     Houses of worship often speak out on issues of justice and 
     morality and do good works within the community but may also 
     labor to adequately fund their ministries. Permitting 
     electioneering in churches would give partisan groups 
     incentive to use congregations as a conduit for political 
     activity and expenditures. Changing the law would also make 
     them vulnerable to individuals and corporations who could 
     offer large donations or a politician promising social 
     service contracts in exchange for taking a position on a 
     candidate. Even proposals that would permit an 
     ``insubstantial'' standard or allow limited electioneering 
     only if it is in furtherance of an organization's mission 
     would actually invite increased government intrusion, 
     scrutiny, and oversight.
       The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, 
     should not become another cog in a political machine or 
     another loophole in campaign finance laws. We strongly urge 
     you to oppose any efforts to repeal or weaken protections in 
     the law for 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of 
     worship.
           Sincerely,
       African American Ministers in Action; African Methodist 
     Episcopal Church--Social Action Commission; Alabama 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; Alliance of Baptists; 
     American Baptist Churches USA; American Baptist Home 
     Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; 
     American Jewish Committee (AJC); Anti-Defamation League; 
     Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists; B'nai 
     B'rith International; Baptist Center for Ethics; Baptist 
     Fellowship Northeast; Baptist General Association of 
     Virginia; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; 
     Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America--Bautistas por 
     la Paz; Baptist Women in Ministry; Bend the Arc: A Jewish 
     Partnership for Justice; California Council of Churches 
     IMPACT; Catholics for Choice.
       Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Central 
     Conference of American Rabbis; Christian Life Commission; 
     Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; Churchnet, a 
     ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri; 
     Colorado Council of Churches; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Heartland; Cooperative Baptist 
     Fellowship Kentucky; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of 
     Arkansas; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Florida; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia; Cooperative 
     Baptist Fellowship of Mississippi; Cooperative Baptist 
     Fellowship of North Carolina; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 
     of Oklahoma; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Texas; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia; Cooperative 
     Baptist Fellowship West; Disciples Center for Public Witness; 
     Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
       Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; The Episcopal Church; 
     Equal Partners in Faith; Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
     America; Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches; 
     Faith Action Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life; 
     Faith Voices Arkansas; Faithful America; Florida Council of 
     Churches; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on 
     National Legislation; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; 
     Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; 
     Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic Baptist Convention of 
     Texas; Interfaith Alliance; International Society for Krishna 
     Consciousness (ISKCON); Islamic Networks Group; Islamic 
     Society of North America.

[[Page H9388]]

       Jewish Community Relations Council, Greater Boston; Jewish 
     Community Relations Council of Greater Washington; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs; The Jewish Federations of North 
     America; Jewish Women International; Kentucky Council of 
     Churches; Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; 
     National Baptist Convention of America; National Council of 
     Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; National Sikh 
     Campaign; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New 
     Baptist Covenant; North Carolina Council of Churches; 
     Oklahoma Conference of Churches; Pastors for Oklahoma Kids; 
     Pastors for Texas Children; Pax Christi, Montgomery County, 
     MD chapters; Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
       Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office of Public 
     Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; 
     Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assembly; Religions for Peace 
     USA; Religious Institute; Rhode Island State Council of 
     Churches; Seventh-day Adventist Church in North 
     America; South Carolina Christian Action Council; South 
     Dakota Faith in Public Life; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for 
     Human Rights; Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     Texas Baptists Committed; Texas Faith Network; Texas 
     Impact; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist 
     Association; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; 
     Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice; United Church 
     of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; The United 
     Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
     Virginia Council of Churches; Women of Reform Judaism; 
     Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).
                                  ____



                                                 Faith Voices,

                                                  August 16, 2017.
     Representative Ron Kind,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kind: As a leader in my religious 
     community, I am strongly opposed to any effort to repeal or 
     weaken current law that protects houses of worship from 
     becoming centers of partisan politics. Changing the law would 
     threaten the integrity and independence of houses of worship. 
     We must not allow our sacred spaces to be transformed into 
     spaces used to endorse or oppose political candidates.
       Faith leaders are called to speak truth to power, and we 
     cannot do so if we are merely cogs in partisan political 
     machines. The prophetic role of faith communities 
     necessitates that we retain our independent voice. Current 
     law respects this independence and strikes the right balance: 
     houses of worship that enjoy favored tax-exempt status may 
     engage in advocacy to address moral and political issues, but 
     they cannot tell people who to vote for or against. Nothing 
     in current law, however, prohibits me from endorsing or 
     opposing political candidates in my own personal capacity.
       Changing the law to repeal or weaken the ``Johnson 
     Amendment''--the the section of the tax code that prevents 
     tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing 
     candidates--would harm houses of worship, which are not 
     identified or divided by partisan lines. Particularly in 
     today's political climate, engaging in partisan politics and 
     issuing endorsements would be highly divisive and have a 
     detrimental impact on congregational unity and civil 
     discourse.
  I therefore urge you to oppose any repeal or weakening of the Johnson 
Amendment, thereby protecting the independence and integrity of houses 
of worship and other religious organizations in the charitable sector.
           Respectfully,
       Wisconsin--
       Rabbi Jessica Barolsky, Rabbi, Reform Judaism, Milwaukee, 
     WI.
       Pastor Kara Baylor, Director of the Center for Faith and 
     Spirituality, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI.
       Rev. RaeAnn Beebe, Pastor, St. Paul's United Church of 
     Christ, Oshkosh, WI.
       Rabbi Marc Berkson, Rabbi, Congregation Emanu-El B'ne 
     Jeshurun, Milwaukee, WI.
       Ms. Andrea Bernstein, Section President, National Council 
     of Jewish Women--Milwaukee Section, Milwaukee, WI.
       Rabbi Jonathan Biatch, Rabbi, Temple Beth El, Madison, 
     Madison, WI.
       Rev. Mary Anne Biggs, Pastor, First Congregational United 
     Church of Christ, Eagle River, WI.
       Coral Bishop, Treasurer, First Baptist Church, Madison, WI.
       Sr. Barbara Brylka, Pastoral Care Services, Felician 
     Sisters--Villa St. Francis, Milwaukee, WI.
       Sr. Rebecca Burke, Sister, Sisters of St. Francis of 
     Assisi, Saint Francis, WI.
       Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi, Congregation Sinai, Milwaukee, 
     WI.
       Rev. Cindy Crane, Lutheran Office for Public Policy in 
     Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
       Rev. Michael Crosby, CR Agent, Province of St. Joseph of 
     the Capuchin Order, Milwaukee, WI.
       Sr. Frances Cunningham, Senior Sister, School Sisters of 
     St. Francis, Roman Catholic, Shorewood, WI.
       Rev. Glenn Danz, Pastor, St. Paul's United Church of 
     Christ, Colgate, WI.
       Mr. Steven C. Davis, Certified Lay Speaker/Leader, United 
     Methodist Church of Whitefish Bay, Glendale, WI.
       Dr. Beverly Davison, Lay Leader, Former President, American 
     Baptist Churches (U.S.A.), Madison, WI.
       Rev. Dr. James Davison, First Baptist Church, Madison, WI.
                                  ____


                    Signers of the Community Letter

       The Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship, signed 
     by more than 5,500 organizations from every state and every 
     segment of the charitable and foundation communities, makes a 
     strong statement in support of nonpartisanship and urges 
     those who have vowed to repeal or weaken this vital 
     protection to leave existing law in place for nonprofit 
     organizations and the people they serve.


                                ALABAMA

       Alabama Asian Cultures Foundation, Birmingham; Alabama 
     Association of Nonprofits, Birmingham; Alabama Historic 
     Ironworks Foundation, McCalla; Black Warrior Riverkeeper, 
     Birmingham; Cahaba River Society, Birmingham; Cahaba 
     Riverkeeper, Birmingham; Cloverdale Playhouse, Montgomery; 
     Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, Birmingham; 
     Community Grief Support Service, Birmingham; Coosa 
     Riverkeeper.
       Empowered to Conquer, Birmingham; Family Promise of Coastal 
     Alabama, Mobile; First Light, Inc., Birmingham; Fraternal 
     Order of Eagles; Friends of Shades Creek, Inc., Homewood; 
     Gasp, Inc., Birmingham; Girls Inc. of Central Alabama, 
     Birmingham; Global Ties, Alabama, Huntsville; Greater 
     Birmingham Ministries, Birmingham; Heart Gallery of Alabama, 
     Inc.
       Humane Society of Elmore County, Wetumpka; Huntsville Youth 
     Orchestra; John Stallworth Foundation; KB Consulting, 
     Hanceville; Prichard Boxing Academy, Prichard; Public 
     Education Foundation of Anniston, Inc., Anniston; Ruff Wilson 
     Youth Organization; Shelby Emergency Assistance, Inc., 
     Montevallo; Society of Mayflower Descendants in Alabama, 
     Alexander City; St. Vincent's Health System, Birmingham; 
     Swell Fundraising, Birmingham.
       The Arc of Shelby County, Pelham; The Dance Foundation, 
     Birmingham; The Epilepsy Foundation of Alabama, Mobile; The 
     Greater Huntsville Humane Society, Huntsville; The National 
     Center for Fire and Life Safety, Calera; Theatre Tuscaloosa, 
     Tuscaloosa; United Way of East Central Alabama, Anniston; 
     Village Creek Society, Birmingham; Virginia Samford Theatre, 
     Birmingham; Workshops, Inc., Birmingham.

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, when I go to my church, South Beaver Creek 
Lutheran Church, Sunday mornings with my family in rural western 
Wisconsin by our family farm, I view that place as a sanctuary for my 
soul; a place for us to congregate, to commune, to spend time in 
fellowship with our fellow neighbors, and to check up on one another.
  Yes, preach values and preach moral lessons to our children, 
absolutely. But by repealing the Johnson amendment, you have the 
potential of creating conflict in the pews. You could be creating 
Republican and Democratic churches, mosques, and synagogues overnight.
  This is one of the last refuges, one of the last institutions that we 
still have as a country given how much we are self-segregating and 
deciding whom we like to hang out with, what clubs we join, what people 
we want to associate with, even our own family members, because of 
political affiliation. Our places of worship are one of the last places 
we can come regardless of political affiliation.
  This will create unnecessary strife and unnecessary conflict, and it 
has the potential of driving young people away from organized religion 
because they won't put up with this. It could be a backdoor attempt for 
a lot of political contributors now to get tax-exempt contributions to 
these organizations for direct, partisan political campaigns. That is 
why the Joint Committee on Taxation viewed this as a cost of over $2 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reconsider and reject this, and 
let's prevent that conflict in our communities.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the 
average family of four in the Third District of Wisconsin will see a 
tax cut of over $2,000.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee and a 
champion for small businesses.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act.
  As a result of this bill, Ohio families will keep more of what they 
earn. Additionally, it will create tens of thousands of jobs in Ohio 
and in other States all across the country.
  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I want to make 
sure that the Tax Code works for our Nation's job creators so that we 
can create jobs, not against them.

[[Page H9389]]

  Seventy percent of the new jobs created in the American economy 
nowadays are created by small businesses. Unfortunately, small 
businesses are getting killed by the existing Tax Code.
  This Tax Code will bring rates down from approximately 40 percent for 
small-business owners to, in many cases, 25 percent and, in a lot of 
cases, 9 percent. From 40 percent down to 9 percent. That means small 
businesses can keep that money, invest and create more jobs for more 
Americans.
  The naysayers around here obviously can't say enough bad about this 
bill, but it is going to be good for America. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, one-third of the gentleman's constituents 
claim the State and local tax deduction, totalling $11,684 per family.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great friend to all of us here in this 
institution.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I include in the Record 
two articles. One is a letter from the National Fraternal Order of 
Police, representing 330,000 police officers in this country coming out 
against this bill because it will affect their members in a very, very 
terrible way. The other is an article in The New York Times today: 
``Republican Tax Plans Put Corporations Over People.''

                                                National Fraternal


                                              Order of Police,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, Senator McConnell, Representative Pelosi 
     and Senator Schumer: I am writing on behalf of the members of 
     the Fraternal Order of Police to urge you to protect the 
     State and local tax (SALT) deduction in the current tax code. 
     Our members put their lives and safety at risk to protect our 
     homes, schools and communities. Their salaries and the 
     equipment they use are paid for by State and local taxes on 
     property, sales and income. These funds are then invested in 
     our law enforcement agencies and the men and women serving in 
     law enforcement.
       The FOP is very concerned that the partial or total 
     elimination of the SALT deductions will endanger the ability 
     of our State and local governments to fund these agencies and 
     recruit the men and women we need to keep us safe. In 
     addition, our members are also citizens of these communities 
     who work and pay these State and local taxes. The elimination 
     of the SALT deductions, in whole or in part, will be deeply 
     harmful to them and their families, effectively raising their 
     taxes as much as $6,300 according to recent studies. The SALT 
     deduction has been part of the tax code since it was 
     originally drafted in 1913. Our members would certainly 
     oppose any effort of the Federal government to tax their 
     income twice by eliminating the SALT deduction.
       On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I urge Congress to preserve the SALT 
     deductions, to reject any effort to eliminate, in whole or in 
     part, these deductions and oppose the final bill if these 
     deductions are included. I thank you in advance for your 
     consideration of our views. Please feel free to contact me or 
     my Senior Advisor Jim Pasco if I can provide any additional 
     information on this important issue.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Nov. 16, 2017]

           Republican Tax Plans Put Corporations Over People

                          (By Jim Tankersley)

       Washington.--There are tough choices at the heart of the 
     Republican tax bills speeding through Congress, and they make 
     clear what the party values most in economic policy right 
     now: deep and lasting tax cuts for corporations.
       The bill set to pass the House on Thursday chooses to take 
     from high-tax Democratic states, particularly California and 
     New York, and give to lower-tax Republican states that 
     President Trump carried in 2016, particularly Florida and 
     Texas. It allows for tax increases on millions of families 
     several years from now, if a future Congress does not 
     intervene, but not for similar increases on corporations.
       The version of the bill moving through the Senate Finance 
     Committee chooses to give peace of mind to corporate 
     executives planning their long-term investments. That comes 
     at the expense of added anxiety for individual taxpayers, 
     particularly those in the middle class, who could face stiff 
     tax increases on Jan. 1, 2026.
       A consistent conservative philosophy underpins all those 
     decisions. So does a very large bet--economically and 
     politically--on the power of business tax cuts to deliver 
     rapid wage growth to United States workers.
       There is also the appearance, to liberal critics in 
     particular, of Republicans seeking to reward their prized 
     constituencies first, while leaving others to bear the 
     consequences if their most optimistic scenarios do not play 
     out.
       The tax plans have evolved rapidly since House leaders 
     first introduced their bill at the beginning of the month. 
     Amendments in the Ways and Means Committee restored some 
     cherished tax breaks that had been targeted for elimination, 
     including those for adoptive parents, and expanded the bill's 
     tax breaks for owners of businesses that are not organized as 
     traditional corporations.
       The Senate bill differed from the House version when it was 
     introduced last week, and broke further away on Tuesday 
     night, with a package of amendments that included repealing 
     the Affordable Care Act's mandate that most individuals buy 
     health insurance. To comply with procedural rules that would 
     allow Republicans to pass the bill on a party-line vote in 
     the Senate, the amendment also set an expiration date--Dec. 
     25, 2025--on all the individual tax cuts in the legislation.
       The plans also differ on their treatment of state and local 
     tax deductions. The Senate would kill them entirely. The 
     House would maintain them only for property taxes and cap the 
     deduction at $10,000 a year. Economists generally say that 
     those tax breaks are inefficient. But eliminating them, in 
     the context of the House bill, would add up to a large 
     geographic transfer of income, according to research by Carl 
     Davis, the research director of the Institute on Taxation and 
     Economic Policy in Washington.
       The House bill would raise personal taxes on Californians 
     and New Yorkers by a combined $16 billion in 2027, Mr. Davis 
     found, while cutting personal taxes on Texans and Floridians 
     by more than $30 billion in total.
       His analysis finds only one state that Mr. Trump carried in 
     2016 --Utah--would receive lower personal tax benefits under 
     the bill than would be expected, given its share of national 
     income, compared with 11 states won by his Democratic rival, 
     Hillary Clinton. The average Clinton state would receive 82 
     percent of its expected benefits, by share of national 
     income, under the plan. The average Trump state would receive 
     181 percent.
       ``It's not unusual for a tax bill to have varying impacts 
     in different parts of the country,'' Mr. Davis said. ``But 
     the degree to which this bill makes winners and losers out of 
     different states is remarkable.''
       Curtailing state and local deductions helps finance a core 
     feature of both the House and Senate bills, which happens to 
     be one of the few provisions Mr. Trump has called 
     nonnegotiable in tax discussions: cutting the corporate 
     income tax to a flat 20 percent rate, down from a top rate of 
     35 percent today. Republicans have kept those cuts permanent, 
     even as the Senate applied an expiration date to the 
     individual cuts and to a key tax credit for families in the 
     House bill. The Senate bill also sets an expiration date on 
     breaks for so-called pass-through businesses, whose owners 
     pay taxes on profits through the tax code for individuals.
       In Washington, Republicans have stressed that cutting 
     corporate taxes will supercharge economic growth, 
     accelerating job creation and raising wages in the process. 
     By that theory, making such cuts permanent is essential.
       The gamble is apparent. Polls show that voters want 
     corporations to pay higher, not lower, taxes and that they 
     doubt corporate rate cuts will show up in their own 
     paychecks, as the White House has claimed. Perhaps not 
     coincidentally, Republican leaders have pitched their bills 
     largely as middle-class tax cuts, stressing the benefits for 
     the typical American family during television appearances and 
     news conferences.
       ``The policy expects that the corporate tax cuts will do 
     the most for growth,'' said Lanhee J. Chen, a research fellow 
     at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, who was the 
     policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in 
     2012. ``On the other hand, they're the hardest to explain.''
       It is an especially tricky explanation in the context of 
     the requests Republicans are making of individual taxpayers, 
     particularly the middle class, to trust that any benefits 
     they see from the bills will not vanish over a decade. The 
     Senate bill is scheduled to deliver an individual tax 
     increases on 137 million tax filers in 2027 if Congress does 
     not intervene first, according to calculations by Ernie 
     Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI. Liberals warn the 
     shock would be huge for low- and middle-income families.
       Republicans are ``making a choice as to which elements of 
     their plan are permanent,'' said Jacob Leibenluft, a senior 
     adviser at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a 
     former economic aide under President Barack Obama, ``and I 
     think it's worth starting with taking them at face value.''
       Canceling those looming increases would further add to the 
     federal budget deficit, if the move is not paired with 
     spending cuts. Middle-class families planning ahead can 
     imagine two possible consequences from that decision: Either 
     an immediate increase in their taxes eight years from now, or 
     an explosion in federal budget deficits, which could 
     necessitate spending cuts to safety net programs like Social 
     Security and Medicare.
       ``The bill reflects talking out of both sides of your mouth 
     at the same time--neither of

[[Page H9390]]

     which is leading to good policy,'' said Maya MacGuineas, the 
     president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
       Republican leaders in both chambers have said that they 
     will not allow individual tax breaks to expire--and that 
     their corporate cuts will yield enough growth and additional 
     tax revenue to pay for themselves, or at least come close. 
     Ms. MacGuineas and others fear the opposite could be even 
     more likely: that growth will fall far short of those 
     optimistic projections, and when the expiring tax provisions 
     come up for reauthorization, budget deficits will be 
     swelling. The result, they say, would be more hard choices--
     and predictable ones.

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised that editorial content 
inserted within unanimous consent requests could result in Members' 
time being charged.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if it weren't bad enough, Mr. Speaker--and 
I come over to this side for a reason: I have got many brothers and 
sisters whom I love here--this is a terrible bill.
  Unanimous consent here. The real price of this bill is hidden. $30 
billion in interest on the debt every year. Who pays this?
  If it weren't bad enough, the taxes that people have to pay today, as 
well as our children and our grandchildren, but beyond that, the real 
price of this bill is further hidden. The temporary family flexibility 
credit expires after 5 years. The temporary exclusion for independent 
care costs expires after 5 years.
  Some have estimated that, if Republicans make these provisions 
permanent, as they claim will happen in future Congresses, the costs of 
the bill will increase to over $400 billion.
  The Senate bill cuts off relief for families in 7 years. They are 
hiding over $500 billion in costs.
  I am particularly interested in the SALT exclusion as a deduction. 
Folks in New Jersey, California, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, et 
cetera, are going to be paying the costs of this deduction being 
removed.
  You can't make this up.
  In fact, the increase mostly comes from eliminating the State and 
local tax deduction for individuals, but corporations can continue to 
deduct their State and local taxes. You can't, Mr. and Mrs. America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, today is not just about tax reform. Today is 
also about what we fundamentally believe as a nation. Today, we say 
working class families, not the government, are best equipped to make 
financial decisions.
  Did we hear anything from our Democratic friends for nearly 8 years 
about lowering taxes on middle and lower income families? We did not.
  Now, for the first time since 1986, we are going to overhaul our 
broken Tax Code.
  Here is what it means for families in North Carolina. Middle-income 
families will see more than a $2,300 increase in their take-home pay. 
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act means more than 30,000 new jobs in North 
Carolina.
  I am encouraged that our Senate colleagues have also decided to 
include the ObamaCare individual mandate repeal and would urge our 
House Conference to consider it, as well.
  Last, I would like to thank Chairman Brady. There is no greater 
servant in the United States House. Thanks to his work and that of his 
team, today we keep our promise. It is time to move forward.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the promise of tax reform has degenerated 
into little more than a scam to aid tax dodgers. While public attention 
is diverted to the scandal in Alabama, Republicans are rushing through 
this sham of a bill, developed in the dark with lobbyists, before most 
Americans realize what is about to hit them in the face.
  Instead of more jobs at home, Republicans create a giant, new gaping 
loophole to ship ever more jobs abroad. Even Speaker Ryan's home State 
Republican Senator Ron Johnson concedes that, under this bill, ``there 
will be a real incentive to keep manufacturing overseas.''
  It is hardly a surprise since President Trump's Wall Streeter 
designated to run the show has just been identified personally from 
leaked Bermudan documents as the past executive of not one, but 22 
different island tax-paradise shell companies.
  Meanwhile, another loophole, carried interest, that flows to 
plutocrats like Donald Trump. That is the very injustice he promised to 
stop last year. It will keep flowing right into their pocket.
  As for the deduction for student interest for those who are 
overwhelmed with college loans, like other middle-class tax provisions, 
that is part of the $65 billion that is cut out of tax incentives by 
Republicans in this bill.
  They are totally dependent upon alternative facts.
  Today's bill even authorizes those who want to pay absolutely zero in 
tax to do that by abolishing the alternative minimum tax (AMT). That 
one change that they make, in one year, would have put $31 million in 
Donald Trump's pocket.
  So you can certainly understand why he is coming to the Capitol 
today, just to say thank you: Thank you for the billion dollars-plus 
that is estimated to go to the Trump family under this bill. ``When 
does my tax refund get here?'' he must be saying.
  Of course, we don't know precisely how much Donald Trump is enriched 
because these Republicans keep colluding to hide his tax returns.
  Republicans want to apply a ``dynamic score'' to this bill. I say: 
create a dynamic workforce, invest in people, and don't overwhelm us 
with endless debt. Develop a more competitive, healthy workforce that 
empowers our DREAMers and other immigrants and that gives every 
American access to education and skill upgrades to achieve their full, 
God-given potential.
  As they deny one middle-class deduction after another and impose this 
new Alzheimer's tax, Republicans claim that they have a patented tax 
miracle cure for most everything but baldness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 
15 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We have seen this trickle-down, medicine sideshow 
before. It didn't work then; it won't work now.
  All they are doing is grabbing for a political life preserver after 
10 months of Republican failures and leave America drowning in debt. 
This isn't ``tax reform.'' It is a giant giveaway to Washington special 
interests that must be stopped.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, my late father was the ranking 
Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee when the last tax 
reform was passed in 1986. I know personally how difficult it was then 
to bring all the competing interests together. Everything looks easy 
from a distance.
  Everyone in this Congress would write a slightly different tax bill 
if given the chance to do so, but we can't have 535 different tax 
bills. Even Chairman Brady would probably change some things if he had 
complete control over it. I would favor some slight differences, but 
this is a great bill, overall, for middle-income people. We need to do 
more in the future to cut spending along with it.
  Kevin Brady is the right man at the right time. I think he has done a 
masterful job in bringing this bill to the floor. No other bill will do 
more to help keep jobs in this country. No other bill we can pass in 
this Congress would do more to help more people than this one will.
  I urge the bill's passage.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), whose knowledge of new markets tax 
credits is second to none in this institution.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record 
two letters: one from the National Education Association and one from 
the American Council on Education.
                                                November 15, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members 
     of the National Education Association (NEA), and the 50 
     million

[[Page H9391]]

     students they serve, we urge you to Vote No on the Tax Cuts 
     and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), a rewrite of the U.S. tax code being 
     voted on this week. This multi-trillion dollar plan is a tax 
     giveaway to the wealthiest and corporations paid for on the 
     backs of working families and students, and jeopardizes the 
     ability of states and local communities to adequately fund 
     public schools. Votes associated with this issue may be 
     included in NEA's Legislative Report Card for the 115th 
     Congress.
       Tax plans reveal the priorities of a nation and in a number 
     of respects this one tells working and middle-class families, 
     students, and educators that they must sacrifice in order to 
     further enrich the wealthy and corporations. We oppose the 
     bill as currently crafted for several reasons outlined below.


  A Giveaway to the Wealthy and Corporations sets up Drastic Cuts to 
                   Medicaid, Medicare, and Education

       Analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of 
     H.R. 1's impact shows that the bill is overwhelmingly skewed 
     to the wealthy. Households with annual incomes over $1 
     million would receive 16 times the percentage increase in 
     after-tax income as other taxpayers. In addition, 45 percent 
     of the cost of the bill's tax cuts would go to households 
     with incomes above $500,000--less than one percent of filers. 
     Meanwhile, JCT estimates show that taxes would actually 
     increase for filers with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 
     over the life of the bill.
       For now, much of the tax cuts will be deficit-financed, but 
     the budget resolution that helped pave the way for this plan 
     previews the next phase: future legislation to cut the 
     growing deficit caused by tax cuts by demanding cuts to 
     critical services that help working people, children, 
     seniors, and others--Medicaid, Medicare, education, and more. 
     In fact, some of this impact will be immediate. According to 
     the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), without enacting 
     subsequent legislation, the tax bill will trigger automatic 
     spending cuts to pay for the tax changes under a ``paygo'' 
     law. The CBO analysis concludes that Medicare would face an 
     FY18 reduction of $25 billion with a remaining $111 billion 
     to be sequestered from remaining mandatory programs.
       Kansas provides a window into what this approach looks 
     like. In 2012, the state's former governor pushed through 
     similar massive tax cuts to individuals and businesses that 
     allegedly would boost the economy. In reality, Kansas' job 
     growth was anemic and the governor and legislature starved 
     state services. Kansas cut funding for public schools, 
     infrastructure, and other services, and scrambled to close a 
     $350-million budget deficit. After voters spoke at the ballot 
     box, lawmakers reversed course, raising taxes and 
     overriding--in a bipartisan manner--the governor's veto. 
     Rather than rushing forward with a partisan bill, Congress 
     would do well to heed the recent lesson from America's 
     heartland.


    Eliminating SALT Deduction is a Tax Increase and Will Devastate 
                           Education Funding

       H.R. 1 would eliminate most of the state and local tax 
     deduction (SALT)--taking money out of the pockets of as many 
     44 million middle-class families across the nation. While the 
     bill hammers middle-class families on this, it oddly 
     preserves the ability of businesses to deduct state and local 
     taxes--yet another example of how the bill takes from working 
     families to provide tax giveaways to those who are wealthier.
       Eliminating any part of the state and local tax deduction 
     could lead to a tax increase on middle class families and 
     have a negative, ripple effect on the ability of states and 
     local communities to fund public services, like education. 
     That could translate into cuts to public schools, lost jobs 
     to educators, and overcrowded classrooms that deprive 
     students of one-on-one attention.
       NEA conducted a detailed analysis of the plan to eliminate 
     most of SALT. In total, education funding could take a $250 
     billion cut over the next 10 years and put up to 250,000 
     education jobs at risk. It is no secret what is likely to 
     follow if Congress eliminates SALT. If there is any doubt, 
     one need only to listen to what far-right groups like ALEC 
     are saying right now. Their letter about the SALT deduction 
     lays out their plan--to lobby for lower taxes at the state 
     and local level. This means even fewer available funds for 
     students and public education.


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

       The tax plan distorts a popular education tax program for 
     middle-class families by creating a voucher scheme with no 
     income limits that is aimed at benefitting the wealthy to set 
     aside up to $10,000 annually in a tax-free account for 
     private school expenses. Both the Heritage Foundation and 
     Education Secretary Betsy DeVos agree, noting to the 
     Washington Post that the backdoor voucher plan is ``. . . a 
     good step forward . . .'' in allowing public dollars to 
     follow children to private school. Make no mistake. This 
     poorly veiled voucher program will only benefit the 
     wealthiest families who can already afford private school 
     tuition at the expense of our students, communities, and 
     taxpayers. In the end, no matter what form or name a voucher 
     program takes, the impact is the same. This risky voucher 
     program will hurt students and neighborhood schools--where 90 
     percent of children attend.


            Elimination of the modest Educator Tax Deduction

       While offering huge giveaways for wealthy individuals and 
     corporations, the plan inexplicably eliminates the popular 
     educator tax deduction that allows educators to deduct 
     eligible unreimbursed out-of-pocket classroom spending--
     books, paper, pencils, and art supplies purchased to 
     supplement meager school budgets--up to $250 annually. The 
     popular plan made ``permanent'' by Congress just two years 
     ago, was claimed on 3.7 million tax returns in 2015. Almost 
     every educator pays out of pocket for school supplies. The 
     most recent study by the National School Supplies and 
     Equipment Association (NSSEA) estimated that public school 
     educators spent $1.6 billion of their own money during the 
     2012-2013 school year on classroom supplies. An estimated 99 
     percent of public school teachers spent some amount of money 
     out of pocket for their classrooms, with typical amounts 
     ranging from $500-$1,000.


              Making College Even More Costly for Families

       The plan also eliminates the student loan interest 
     deduction. This is bad news for students and families. Under 
     current rules, borrowers paying off education loans can 
     annually deduct up to $2,500 of interest paid on student 
     loans. H.R. 1 essentially raises the long-term cost of 
     attending college by eliminating the deductions for interest 
     paid on student loans. According to the IRS, over 12 million 
     individuals claimed this deduction in 2015. Further, the bill 
     eliminates a provision that allows universities to waive 
     tuition for graduate students. Graduate students would be 
     taxed on the value of that tuition as if it were income, 
     making it almost impossible for many students to afford 
     graduate degrees. In a time of rising college costs and 
     skyrocketing student loan debt, it is unthinkable to take 
     away provisions that assists students and families struggling 
     to pay for college.


        Eliminating Successful School Construction Bonds Program

       The Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) Program has proven 
     to be an efficient and cost-effective way to help 
     disadvantaged communities address pressing renovation and 
     repair needs in schools. Investors receive a federal tax 
     credit equal to the amount of interest payable on the bonds, 
     thereby relieving local taxpayers and municipalities of the 
     interest burden. A school that is awarded a QZAB may use the 
     funds to renovate and repair buildings, invest in equipment, 
     and update technology which are all vital to student well-
     being and success. Eliminating this program will only ensure 
     that more and more students will go to school in yesterday's 
     buildings with out-of-date technology and often unsafe, 
     crumbling infrastructures.


        Putting State and Local Public Pensions Funding at Risk

       Section 5001 of H.R. 1 could subject certain investment of 
     state and local government pension plans to the unrelated 
     business income tax (UBIT). Investment earnings pay for 
     approximately two-thirds of state and local government 
     pension benefits, which are taxed when distributed to 
     participants. In addition to the revenue lost from the tax 
     itself, subjecting these pension plans to UBIT could pose 
     significant and complex compliance costs that could 
     dramatically affect pension funds. Further, the UBIT will 
     result in a drag on these critically important investment 
     returns, sets a dangerous precedent for taxation of state 
     entities, and will ultimately increase costs to taxpayers.


              Rewriting the Tax Code Should Not be Rushed

       In 1986, Congress undertook a yearlong, bipartisan effort 
     to deliberately and carefully rewrite the tax code. Measured 
     consideration should again be taken in understanding the 
     near-term and long-term impacts a tax code rewrite will have 
     on families, communities, and public services. Instead, 
     Congressional leadership is rushing the process and putting 
     forward a bill that further tilts the scale in favor of the 
     wealthy and corporations, and paid for by working families. 
     For all of the reasons outlined above, we urge you to Vote No 
     on H.R. 1.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Marc Egan,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
     National Education Association.
                                  ____



                                American Council on Education,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
     Re Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and 
         Jobs Act.

     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Ways and Means Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of 
     the American Council on Education and the undersigned higher 
     education associations, we write to express grave concerns 
     with H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
       This legislation, taken in its entirety, would discourage 
     participation in postsecondary education, make college more 
     expensive for those who do enroll, and undermine the 
     financial stability of public and private, two-year and four-
     year colleges and universities. According to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means summary, the bill's provisions would increase 
     the cost to students attending college by more than $65 
     billion between 2018 and 2027. This is not in America's 
     national interest.
       It is possible to offer tax relief to hard-working middle-
     class and lower-income

[[Page H9392]]

     Americans in a way that does not increase college costs and 
     does not make a quality higher education less accessible. We 
     are eager to work with Congress to enact such legislation, 
     but this bill heads in the wrong direction.
       Our main objections to the bill are listed below, in the 
     order in which they appear in the legislation. The order is 
     not meant to reflect prioritization:
       Sec. 1002: Changes to the standardized deduction, which 
     will reduce charitable contributions to our institutions;
       Sec. 1002: Repeal of Lifetime Learning Credit, while not 
     substantially increasing the American Opportunity Tax Credit 
     (AOTC);
       Sec. 1204: Repeal of the Student Loan Interest Deduction 
     (SLID);
       Sec. 117(d): Repeal of the qualified tuition reduction;
       Sec. 127: Repeal of educational assistance program;
       Sec. 1303: Changes to the state and local tax (SALT) 
     deduction, which will reduce state budgets and, in turn, 
     funding for public higher education;
       Sec. 3601: Termination of private activity bonds; and,
       Sec. 5103: Creation of a new excise tax on endowments at 
     private colleges and universities.
       Colleges and universities also have a number of concerns 
     about other provisions that would negatively impact students 
     by lessening charitable giving, limiting university-industry 
     partnerships, and compromising educational quality.

                  Title I--Tax Reform for Individuals


subtitle a--simplification and reform of rates, standard deduction, and 
                               exemptions

       Sec. 1002. Enhancement of the standard deduction
       Colleges and universities are concerned that doubling the 
     standard deduction for individuals and couples will reduce 
     the number of taxpayers who itemize, significantly reducing 
     the value of the charitable deduction and leading to a drop 
     in donations to all nonprofits, including colleges and 
     universities. For private nonprofit and public colleges and 
     universities, the charitable deduction is vital for 
     generating private support to higher education institutions 
     to help achieve their educational missions of teaching, 
     research, and public service. While the bill preserves a 
     modest charitable giving incentive, its value would be 
     significantly curtailed and charitable giving would decline 
     to all nonprofits, which provide essential services to all 
     Americans. We are disappointed that the bill did not include 
     a proposal that would expand the charitable deduction to non-
     itemizers, like the universal charitable deduction.


     subtitle c--simplification and reform of education incentives

       Sec. 1201. The American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC)
       H.R. 1 would repeal the Lifetime Learning Credit, while 
     only expanding AOTC to include a fifth year of reduced 
     support. This would be a large step backwards, not an 
     improvement, for many students and their families who benefit 
     under current law. We appreciate that the bill maintains the 
     expanded eligible expenses of the AOTC, which includes 
     required course materials, as well as the current income 
     thresholds. But we are extremely concerned that the 
     ``enhanced'' AOTC, as written, would preclude graduate 
     students, part-time students, lifelong learners (particularly 
     those seeking retraining), and any student taking longer than 
     five years to finish their education from accessing the AOTC, 
     adversely impacting their financial ability to pursue a 
     degree or lifelong learning. Indeed, under the changes 
     proposed in the bill, many non-traditional students--the 
     fastest growing segment of students in higher education--
     would lose significant tax benefits they currently rely upon 
     to help finance their higher education.
       Sec. 1204. Repeal of other provisions relating to education
       The legislation as written would repeal the current Student 
     Loan Interest Deduction (SLID). Under current law, any 
     individual with income up to $80,000 (or $160,000 on a joint 
     return) repaying student loans can currently deduct up to 
     $2,500 in student loan interest paid. In 2014, 12 million 
     taxpayers benefited from SLID. Eliminating this provision 
     would mean that, over the next decade, the cost of student 
     loans for borrowers would increase by roughly $13 billion.
       H.R. 1 would also repeal two important provisions meant to 
     exclude tuition waivers and tuition exemptions from income 
     for campus employees and graduate students.
       Section 117(d) permits educational institutions to provide 
     their employees, spouses, or dependents with tuition 
     reductions that are excluded from taxable income, helping 
     them afford a college education and providing an important 
     benefit to many middle- and lower-income college employees.
       Section 117(d)(5) is also an important provision that 
     reduces the cost of graduate education and mitigates the tax 
     liability of graduate students teaching and researching as 
     part of their academic programs. Roughly 145,000 graduate 
     students received a tuition reduction in 2011-2012. Repeal of 
     this provision would result in thousands of graduate students 
     being subjected to a major tax increase. The provision is 
     also critical to the research endeavor at major universities, 
     particularly in the crucial science, technology, engineering 
     and math (STEM) fields. According to data from the Department 
     of Education, 57 percent of tuition reductions went to 
     graduate students in STEM programs.
       Section 127 allows employers to offer employees up to 
     $5,250 annually in tuition assistance, which is excluded from 
     taxable income. This provision has been an important means of 
     building and adding to the competencies of the workforce and 
     is a critical tool to help our nation accelerate its economic 
     growth.
       For all of these reasons, we strongly believe that Sections 
     117(d) and 127 should be preserved.


          subtitle d--simplification and reform of deductions

       Sec. 1303. Repeal of deduction for certain taxes not paid 
     or accrued in a trade or business
       Changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction will 
     have a significant negative effect on state budgets, forcing 
     state governments to make very difficult and harmful funding 
     decisions. The SALT deduction helps state and local 
     governments fund public services that provide widely shared 
     benefits. Limiting the deduction will almost certainly make 
     it harder for states and localities--many of which already 
     face serious budget strains--to raise sufficient revenues in 
     the coming years to fund higher education and other 
     priorities. There has been a long-term decline in state 
     support for higher education and cuts to SALT will exacerbate 
     this problem. Cuts in state support for public higher 
     education can lead to increased tuition and potentially cuts 
     to state student financial aid programs, raising the cost of 
     attending college for students and their families. History 
     has shown that when states need to make cuts, support for 
     higher education is often a primary target.

                     Title III--Business Tax Reform


                        subtitle g--bond reforms

       Sec. 3601. Termination of private activity bonds
       H.R. 1 would eliminate private activity bonds, which are 
     used by private nonprofit colleges and universities to 
     finance capital projects. This repeal would essentially 
     prevent institutions from using lower-cost tax-exempt bond 
     financing. Higher borrowing costs can result in diminished 
     investments in infrastructure, fewer jobs, reduced services, 
     and increased service charges and other fees to students.

                     Title V--Exempt Organizations


                        subtitle b--excise taxes

       Sec. 5103. Excise tax based on investment income of private 
     colleges and universities
       H.R. 1 fundamentally changes the way nonprofits are treated 
     by creating a new and unprecedented tax on endowments of some 
     private colleges and universities. This provision undermines 
     the very nature of the tax-exempt status of private colleges 
     and universities. While the new excise tax is currently 
     focused on private institutions, we strongly oppose this new 
     excise tax and the precedent it sets for all of higher 
     education.
       Investment income from endowments is used every day to 
     support nearly every aspect of an institution's operations, 
     including all the components vital to its mission and the 
     delivery of a high-quality, affordable education, from 
     financial aid to research and student retention and success 
     programs. An endowment is not a single entity that can be 
     used for any purpose. Rather, it is a permanent investment 
     fund consisting of often thousands of separate accounts 
     designed for the needs of the present and the future. Under 
     H.R. 1 potentially large amounts of endowment dollars would 
     be redirected to the federal government, taking them away 
     from providing scholarships to our students and supporting 
     research and education. It also would effectively be a tax on 
     donors' contributions and shift money from the dedicated 
     purpose for the donation. Roughly 160 institutions will 
     likely be affected by this provision, and we strongly object 
     to it.
       For all of these reasons, we cannot support H.R. 1 and 
     strongly oppose the proposed changes outlined above.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ted Mitchell,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       ACPA--College Student Educators International, American 
     Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American 
     Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, American 
     Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
     (AACRAO), American Association of Community Colleges, 
     American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 
     American Association of University Professors, American 
     Council on Education, American Dental Education Association, 
     American Psychological Association.
       APPA, ``Leadership in Educational Facilities'', Association 
     of American Colleges and Universities, Association of 
     American Medical Colleges, Association of American 
     Universities, Association of Catholic Colleges and 
     Universities, Association of Community College Trustees, 
     Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 
     Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association 
     of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of 
     Research Libraries.
       Association of Teacher Educators, College and University 
     Professional Association for Human Resources, Consortium of 
     Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, Council for 
     Advancement and Support of

[[Page H9393]]

     Education, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, 
     Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Council of 
     Graduate Schools, Council of Independent Colleges, Council on 
     Governmental Relations, Council on Social Work Education.
       EDUCAUSE, Hispanic Association of Colleges and 
     Universities, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 
     NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 
     National Adult Learner Coalition, National Association for 
     College Admission Counseling, National Association for Equal 
     Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of 
     College and University Business Officers, National 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 
     National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association, The Council for 
     Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), Thurgood Marshall 
     College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund), UPCEA.

  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill 
is a dangerous bill that raises taxes on 36 million middle class 
households; takes healthcare from tens of millions of Americans; 
skyrockets the cost of health insurance for all Americans, but 
especially for those who are sick or have preexisting conditions; and 
directly results in cuts to Medicare and safety net spending next 
year--all to give corporate special interests immediate, permanent, and 
monumental tax cuts.
  Cut, cut, cut is all that I have heard this week: cut the safety net; 
cut service for the needy; cut service for the physically challenged; 
cut the poor; cut the homeless; cut Medicaid; cut education; cut out 
low-income tax credits; cut out new market tax credits; cut out social 
services; cut block grants; cut student loans.
  Winter is here. Cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. If 
you live in Chicago, Minneapolis, the Midwest, or the Northeast, 
without any heat, you are subject to catch pneumonia and die. There is 
no doubt about it.
  I can imagine that college residents, hospital administrators, and 
managers of programs are wringing their hands, wondering what they are 
going to do.
  I heard a minister last Sunday at one of the churches in my community 
asking this, and he said: Pray, organize, vote.
  Vote against this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge our incredible 
chairman and his leadership over the last 7 years I have been here and 
working this plan forward. It is an exciting time for all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 
legislation to provide tax relief to middle class families and small-
business owners across America.
  As a businessman for more than 30 years, I have had the opportunity 
to employ thousands of workers. I have seen firsthand how broken our 
tax system can be for many hardworking Americans.
  Under this bill, not only will the average family of four receive a 
tax cut, but small businesses will finally be taxed at a lower rate to 
help them expand and grow jobs in America.
  According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, this bill will create 1 
million new jobs and grow the economy by 4 percent, a growth rate this 
country hasn't experienced since 2000.
  It is time to give all Americans a break in terms of their taxes. 
With passage of this bill, we will finally have the opportunity to help 
middle class families and get our economy back on track.
  I urge support for this critical bill to cut taxes and reform our tax 
system.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Higgins), one of the most knowledgeable members of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more than a hit 
job on middle America to pay for a massive tax cut for corporate 
America. The only certainty from this charade is slower economic 
growth, more income inequality, and exploding budget deficits.
  When you take away tax relief from sick people who were born into 
illness and for whom insurance doesn't provide enough coverage, that is 
a hit on middle America.
  When you remove help for people who are just trying to make college 
affordable, who are trying to make themselves better, that is a hit on 
middle America.

                              {time}  1015

  And when you take away healthcare from 13 million Americans and raise 
the cost for millions more because you needed another $300 billion to 
give more to corporate America, that is a hit on middle America.
  And when 152,000 people from my community and millions more from New 
York lose 100 years of protection from State and local taxes, 
protection worth more than $8,000 per household, that is a hit on my 
community, it is a hit on New York State, and it is a hit on each and 
every community in America.
  And when you take away the essential needs of middle America to feed 
the rapacious needs of corporate America, it is a hit on fundamental 
fairness, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a hit on all of America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, we know that the economic and job creation 
benefits are key components of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, making the 
U.S. globally competitive again, giving much-needed tax cuts to 
American business, and much-needed wage increases to American workers. 
But, Mr. Speaker, it is really the long overdue direct tax benefits to 
the vast middle class, who don't have a lobbyist living in the rich 
suburbs of Washington, D.C., that take center stage for me and my 
fellow North Dakotans.
  You see, 80 percent of the citizens of North Dakota file claiming 
this standard deduction. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the vast 
majority of my constituents will see their deductions nearly doubled if 
they do nothing else. And obviously, with the doubling of the standard 
deduction, it will likely inspire even more North Dakotans to claim 
this simple deduction.
  Mr. Speaker, this huge benefit, combined with greater job 
opportunities and simpler, less expensive filing costs, and, of course, 
a generous family tax credit, will put more money in the pockets and 
less anxiety in the hearts of middle class North Dakotans. Supporting 
this reform package is easy for me because it is right for North 
Dakota, and I thank Chairman Brady for this outstanding work.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene), a very successful businesswomen in her own 
right, who understands the modern economy.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, in this Ryan-McConnell tax bill, 
Republicans are touting the largest set of corporate tax cuts in our 
country's history. They are raving that their corporate cuts will 
create jobs, even though we know that trickle-down economics has never 
worked and never will.
  Instead of bringing Democrats and the public into the process, 
Republicans have made the most cynical tradeoffs, only hurting people 
who need help the most.
  This is wrong. Tax reform should be about coming together and making 
choices that reflect our values.
  Yet, under this plan, teachers, who buy supplies for their students, 
like pens, pencils, and paper, will lose the ability to deduct those 
costs from their tax returns, but corporations still can deduct supply 
costs.
  Firefighters will no longer be able to deduct their State and local 
income or sales taxes, but corporations still can.
  Homeowners will no longer be able to deduct all of their property 
taxes, but corporations still can.
  And if workers have to move because their employer is forcing them to 
relocate their families or lose their jobs, they will no longer be able 
to deduct their moving expenses, but corporations, even those 
offshoring jobs, still can.
  This bill increases taxes on 36 million working families and rips 
away key lifelines that help people struggling with long-term illness, 
childcare, and education expenses. It blows a $1.5 trillion hole in the 
deficit and burdens our children and grandchildren with debt, 
triggering an automatic $25 billion cut to Medicare. This bill gives 
massive permanent tax cuts to corporations,

[[Page H9394]]

but working families will have to live with the temporary scraps thrown 
at them.
  Bottom line: this bill hurts Americans from cradle to retirement, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the leaders of the Tax Policy 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady and 
all the members of the Ways and Means staff who have worked tirelessly 
in order to bring this bill forward.
  I can't tell you how excited I am to be here today. My friend, Mr. 
Larson, I notice he wears a pin with a picture of John Kennedy, one of 
my favorite Presidents of all time.
  Let me just read from a speech that President Kennedy gave on 
December 14, 1962. This is 55 years ago, and he gave it in an address 
to the Economic Club of New York.
  ``Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and 
the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is 
increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as 
our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by 
restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our 
budget--just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
  `` . . . only full employment can balance the budget, and tax 
reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting 
taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more 
prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus.''
  Keeping that in mind--and I hear the debate going back and forth--I 
would just encourage all of our Members: you are going to have a choice 
today to take your voting card, and you are going to put it in the 
voting machine, and you can push a green button that says ``go,'' 
putting this Nation back on track, making America the greatest economic 
power in the world; or you can push the red button and say: you know 
what, just not something I can vote for today because it is just not 
exactly what I want.
  Next week, 50 million Americans will travel because they want to come 
home; they want to come home for the holidays; they want to come home 
for Thanksgiving. This bill is a Thanksgiving bill. This is a jobs bill 
because what we are telling corporate America is we want you to come 
home. We want to make this a more favorable environment for you to 
live, to work, to succeed, because we know that true success in 
business is only a sustainable business model.
  So when you tax people at the highest rate in the industrialized 
world, when you regulate people that puts them in an uncompetitive 
advantage on the shelf, they can't exist, and so where do they go? They 
have to leave home to go overseas to find that answer.
  Now, I just want to go over some things that really are important. A 
friend of mine by the name of George Abraham, who is a basketball 
coach--George and I were talking one day, and we were talking about the 
value of winning. And George said to me: You know what, Mike, the only 
position you want to be in is the number one position.
  And I said: Really?
  He goes: Yes. Because anything other than finishing first is you 
finish with the rest.
  If you were to take a survey, and Forbes did, and they said: If you 
were starting a business today, where would you start that business?
  And right away, I would say: Are you kidding me? It is the United 
States of America because of who we are, our greatness.
  And no, there are 22 other countries that people say I would rather 
go someplace else than do it right here in America. That is incredible. 
And when we talk about where we are as a people--where we are as a 
people--listen to these figures. These are not my figures, by the way. 
This is the Tax Foundation:
  Cuts for Americans at every economic level;
  Reduces taxes by almost $1,200 for every average-size middle-income 
American family;
  Reduces taxes by almost $2,000 for every average-size middle-income 
family in Pennsylvania's Third District;
  Grows national GDP by 3.5 percent;
  Increases American wages by 2.7 percent;
  Increases after-tax income for every taxpayer by 3.8 percent in the 
long run;
  Increases after-tax incomes for median families in Pennsylvania by 
over $2,300;
  Creates almost 900,000 new American jobs; and
  Creates, in my State of Pennsylvania, over 36,000 new jobs.
  So I say, this is a jobs bill. This is a revenue raiser for us. This 
is about bringing people back home. This is about more take-home pay 
for every hardworking American guy and gal who is out there who gets up 
every day and gets up to do one thing, and that is, to protect their 
families and work in the interest of their country.
  I am just asking you today to look at this card and know that you 
have within the power of your vote to unleash the greatest economy in 
the world, to unshackle it from a Tax Code that makes it impossible to 
compete globally, that overregulates it and forces it offshore, and 
then blames them for leaving.
  This is a ``come on back home.'' This is a ``don't leave home; stay 
here; we are on your side; we are going to work with you; and we are 
going to get there.''
  I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's do what is right 
for America. If it is right for America, it is right for Republicans, 
it is right for Democrats, it is right for Independents, it is right 
for Libertarians, it is right for America.
  This is the right time to do the right thing. My friends, we cannot 
stay where we are. A standpat hand is a nonwinning hand. The ability to 
move forward, the ability to absolutely not just participate in a 
global economy but dominate a global economy and give every single 
American the faith and a future and restore the faith they need to have 
in this body that we are doing the best thing in their interest every 
single day that we come here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have Mr. Kelly--as he 
describes sports teams, we discovered he is a closet Patriots fan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Judy Chu), whose history, in terms of revenue and revenue 
collection, is well known to the Congress.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear about the 
GOP tax scam: corporate interests get a huge giveaway. They get a 
windfall tax break. Who pays for it? The middle class. Who wins? 
Corporations, billionaires, millionaires, the Trump family. Who loses? 
Women, families, seniors, teachers, students.
  As a former Los Angeles Community College teacher of 20 years, I 
can't believe what Republicans are doing to students. They rip away 
critical benefits that help our students pay for their college 
education. They eliminate the student loan interest deductions and 
choose to tax graduate students on money they have never even received 
by taxing the tuition assistance they get for working for their 
schools.
  This bill even pinches students when they are still in elementary 
school by taxing their teachers who claim a deduction for the school 
supplies they pay for out of their own paycheck. One teacher in my area 
even pays for the ink in her classroom printer. They don't ask to be 
repaid, just to be able to deduct the expense.
  If corporations get to keep this deduction, why not our teachers? And 
then if that is not cruel enough, they eliminate the deduction for 
extraordinary medical expenses for those with Alzheimer's and cancer. 
And this week we learn that Republicans plan to pay for these corporate 
cuts by causing 13 million people to lose their health insurance, a 
move that will increase premiums by 10 percent and result in 
individuals with preexisting conditions losing access to lifesaving 
affordable coverage.
  Then Republicans eliminate the State and local ta deduction, which is 
used by over 6 million California households, to prevent their hard-
earned dollars from being taxed twice. Of all the States, Californians 
will actually face the largest net tax increase

[[Page H9395]]

from this bill of $12.1 billion in 2027 alone.

  California Republicans who vote for this bill ought to be ashamed of 
themselves, and the voters need to hold them accountable. Thirty-six 
million middle class families will be stuck holding the bag under this 
plan. For what? For tax cuts for corporate interests. This is 
unacceptable.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), one of our key members of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act. First of all, I want to thank President Trump for 
making this a priority, but I especially want to thank Chairman Brady 
for his tireless efforts and leadership in bringing this legislation to 
the floor today.
  Three decades ago, there was a 24-year-old starting a business in 
Ohio. He borrowed money and started hiring people. As he grew his 
business, he didn't take a paycheck and kept hiring hardworking middle 
class Americans. But then, as he started looking over things, he 
couldn't hire anymore, because of the tremendous tax bill owed to the 
Federal Government.
  That is what small business entrepreneurs face in today's tax 
environment. That 24-year-old was me. Luckily, I was a certified public 
accountant. I was able to figure out a way to make my business work and 
grow without our suffocating Tax Code or through our suffocating Tax 
Code.
  Unfortunately, most small-business owners do not experience the Tax 
Code complexities until they get started. They have an idea, they start 
their business, and then the government steps in; and they are not 
CPAs.
  If my three children were to ask me today if they should risk and 
start a business, I would be hesitant to push them down that path, 
which is why I support H.R. 1, which lowers the tax rate for businesses 
and gives hardworking taxpayers a break. This bill puts more money in 
their pockets to do with it what is important to them, those 
hardworking taxpayers, not letting the government take it and waste it.

                              {time}  1030

  Lowering the individual rate will give Americans the opportunity to 
choose where they want to spend their money instead of banking on a 
government to spend it for them.
  On the business side, the harsh reality is that America has become an 
uncompetitive place to do business. With the highest corporate tax rate 
in the developed world, it should not be a surprise that businesses are 
relocating to countries with better business climates. Fortunately, by 
bringing our rate down to 20 percent, we can make America one of the 
most competitive countries in the world to do business.
  It is hard for U.S. companies to compete against companies based in 
Canada, where the Federal income tax rate is 15 percent, Ireland at 
12.5 percent, or even the U.K., which will be 17 percent by 2020. 
Businesses set their prices to be competitive. The U.S. has to set its 
business rate to compete, as well.
  The high corporate tax rate is not just a Wall Street problem; it is 
a Main Street problem. Business entities do not pay taxes; people do.
  The burden of the corporate tax rate falls on three categories of 
people: shareholders, customers, and employees. Corporations do not pay 
taxes; we do.
  This bill helps companies compete, hire more people, and give them a 
more competitive wage. This bill gives individuals more money to spend 
on what they want, not what the government wants. This bill simplifies 
the Tax Code for hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this historic reform so 
more Americans can choose where their money goes, not Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 1.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a Marshall Scholar and attorney.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to reject this misguided and mean-spirited tax bill that is 
being rushed through this Congress today.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican sham tax bill picks winners and losers. 
The winners under this tax bill are corporations, Wall Street fat cats, 
the top 1 percent of the highest wage earners in America, and the 
special interests. The losers are the middle class, working families, 
students, the most vulnerable in our society, and our farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Farmers Union, which objects to this bill.

                                       National Farmers Union,

                                                November 14, 2017.

 Congressional Tax Plans Jeopardize the Farm Safety Net, CBO Analysis 
                                  Says

     For Immediate Release.
                                           Contact: Andrew Jerome.
       Washington.--Amidst the steepest drop in farm profitability 
     in a generation, U.S. Congressional leadership is proposing 
     tax reform legislation that would jeopardize all funding for 
     farm bill commodity safety net programs.
       The two tax bills being considered in both the U.S. Senate 
     and the U.S. House of Representatives would add $1.5 trillion 
     to the federal deficit. According to new Congressional Budget 
     Office analysis of the bills, that $1.5 trillion deficit 
     increase would need to be offset by eliminating all funding 
     for vital farm programs such as Agriculture Risk Coverage 
     (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), among other mandatory 
     federal spending programs.
       ``If Congress passes legislation that increases the 
     deficit, they will subsequently be forced to cut federal 
     spending. In the case of the tax bill, current law could 
     require 100 percent sequestration of all commodity program 
     payments and other farm bill programs,'' said National 
     Farmers Union President Roger Johnson ``Tax cuts for the 
     highest income brackets should absolutely not come at the 
     expense of programs that protect our nation's family farmers 
     and ranchers.''
       The House and Senate budget resolution that was passed 
     earlier this year paves the way for tax cuts that would 
     increase the U.S. federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten 
     years Statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules require that 
     increases in deficit spending be offset by reduced spending 
     across non-exempt mandatory programs The government would be 
     required to cut such programs by $150 billion per year in 
     accordance with PAYGO.
       The total available pool of funding across all non-exempt 
     mandatory programs amounts to, in CBO's estimation, ``only 
     between $85 billion to $90 billion,'' meaning that all 
     impacted mandatory spending programs other than Medicare, 
     including the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), would be 
     entirely stripped of funding.
       The CCC is the second largest non-exempt mandatory program, 
     after Medicare It funds dairy and other farm program 
     payments, including ARC and PLC, both of which are critical 
     for keeping family farmers and ranchers in business during 
     times of economic uncertainty. Discretionary spending and a 
     number of mandatory programs, including Social Security, the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), federal 
     crop insurance, and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 
     are exempt from PAYGO. ``Farmers Union has long opposed using 
     budget sequestration to reduce the federal deficit, 
     especially through cuts to agricultural programs,'' added 
     Johnson. ``This proposal asks farmers and ranchers to trade 
     any possible tax benefits for the elimination of farm safety 
     net payments, like ARC and PLC. That would be a disastrous 
     trade. NFU continues to advocate for a simplified, 
     progressive tax code that does not risk programs vital to the 
     livelihoods and well-being of American family farmers and 
     ranchers.''

  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. These are the very same people that this 
President promised to benefit.
  This is what this bill does for corporate America:
  It dramatically cuts rates from the largest companies in the world, 
moving the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.
  It creates loopholes for wealthy individuals to recharacterize their 
wage income as small business income so that they can pay less in 
taxes.
  It repeals the alternative minimum tax, which captures the tax 
liabilities for wealthy individuals. In fact, the only tax return that 
we have ever seen of Mr. Trump was his 2005 tax return in which he had 
to pay $38 million. Why? Because of AMT.
  And this tax bill will also permanently repeal the estate tax, which 
only affects 5,500 households in America. And I can tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, none of those households are in my district.
  In contrast, how will this tax bill impact the middle class? Mr. 
Speaker, 36 million middle class households will pay more taxes. One in 
four taxpayers will pay more taxes.
  To pay for the corporate tax cuts, this bill will hurt working 
families. It will eliminate deductions on interest on student loans. It 
will eliminate medical expense deductions, which many, many households 
use to pay for long-term care needs. It will eliminate

[[Page H9396]]

the lifetime learning credit. And it will also do away with deductions 
for families that pay for daycare and aging parents.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not comprehensive tax reform. The American 
people deserve better, and we as a Congress can do better.
  Please reject this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his leadership.
  Today is a huge victory for working Americans. Today, we take a giant 
step forward to deliver more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks 
for working Hoosiers. This bill will create thousands of jobs in 
Indiana, and it will give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut.
  The Trump tax plan also includes a provision that I authored to stop 
$4 billion to $7 billion in refundable child tax credits paid out to 
illegal immigrants each year. These savings help expand the child tax 
credit for working American families by $600 per child.
  Hoosiers get it: no one should get a tax incentive to violate the 
law.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this plan. It will give 
working Hoosiers a pay raise, bring back jobs from overseas, and get 
our economy moving again.
  I also urge the Senate to act and keep their promise to the American 
people.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article 
about this bill's impact on graduate students in my district.

         [From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Nov. 16, 2017]

 Opinion: Only Wealthy Can Afford Grad School Under House Tax Plan Up 
                             for Vote Today

                          (By Maureen Downey)

       Jenny C. Bledsoe is a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate in English 
     at Emory University, specializing in medieval literature. She 
     was featured in a New York Times story last week that 
     examined how the GOP House tax plan would impact a range of 
     American students. In this essay, Bledsoe focuses on the 
     change that makes graduate tuition waivers taxable income.
       The tax plan is expected to come to the House floor today 
     where passage is predicted. The Senate, however, is not 
     expected to take up its own tax bill until after 
     Thanksgiving. And then House and Senate conferees will have 
     to hammer out their differences and come up with a compromise 
     plan.
       Under the House plan, Bledsoe and other doctoral students 
     would be hurt by a new provision that would tax graduate 
     students on tuition wavers granted them in exchange for 
     working as teaching assistants or researchers. The tax 
     accountants hired by The New York Times estimated Bledsoe and 
     her husband would pay an additional $7,194 in taxes under the 
     House tax bill.
       When I about this last week, some readers contended the 
     increase in the standard deduction will offset the 
     eliminations of these education deductions. However, some 
     reviews found that not to be true for graduate students.
                                  ____


                   Impact of GOP Tax Plan on Students

                         (By Jenny C. Bledsoe)

       The House GOP tax bill makes graduate school inaccessible 
     for anyone who is not independently wealthy, and it will 
     likely cause current graduate students to drop out of 
     doctoral programs and/or declare bankruptcy.
       A single line in the 429-page bill effects this change: 26 
     U.S. tax code Sec. 117(d) allows students conducting research 
     or teaching for a university (usually Ph.D. students on 
     fellowship) to receive tuition waivers tax free. Any stipends 
     are taxed.
       The House ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,'' however, will repeal 
     this provision, meaning that a Ph.D. student making a stipend 
     of $24,000 will be taxed as if they are making $85,200. This 
     would have been my situation two years ago. During the first 
     three years of Emory's Ph.D. program, a student currently 
     receives a tuition waiver amounting to $61,200. Once you 
     reach ``tuition-paid'' status after your third year, the 
     annual tuition is $30,600.
       Tax experts hired by The New York Times estimated that my 
     husband's and my tax bill would increase by $7,194--despite 
     the increase in the standard deduction--because of the newly 
     taxable tuition waiver.
       Tuition amounts vary widely depending on the institution, 
     and the situation may be worse (or better) for some 
     individuals, depending on tuition rates and stipend amounts. 
     At Georgia Tech, full-time graduate student tuition for one 
     semester is $6,894 in-state and $14,284 out-of-state. Georgia 
     State's tuition is $4,680 in-state and $15,012 out-of-state 
     for one semester.
       Graduate students will clearly owe much larger federal 
     income tax bills, and in some states, including Georgia, they 
     will also have to pay more due to the proposed changes to the 
     federal tax credit for state and local income taxes. Those at 
     private colleges and universities will be responsible for 
     larger taxable amounts (given the higher tuition at private 
     institutions).
       Those at public universities will pay the taxes on their 
     relatively lower tuition waiver amounts, but they will have 
     to do so with already significantly smaller stipends than 
     Ph.D. students receive at private universities.
       This is an issue across the disciplines. It will affect any 
     graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. on a research or teaching 
     fellowship, which common for those pursuing doctorates in 
     STEM, the social sciences, and the humanities. In addition to 
     graduate students suffering personally, universities will 
     experience the effects of their graduate students' tax 
     burdens in multiple ways (in addition to the bill's other 
     deleterious effects on higher education).
       Graduate students will have less time for research because 
     they will have to work additional jobs. Humanities Ph.D. 
     students, who provide essential labor as instructors, will 
     have less time to devote to the classes they teach to 
     undergraduates.
       Long-term effects are difficult to measure, but surely many 
     lower-income students will no longer attend. It's unlikely 
     that international students will be able to maintain a decent 
     standard of living since they are often forbidden from taking 
     on additional work.
       The House GOP tax bill will lead to a ``brain drain,'' with 
     international students and Americans alike seeking graduate 
     study elsewhere or not all. In terms of personal finance, it 
     will be extremely challenging (if not impossible) to meet 
     one's basic needs--food, shelter--while pursuing a higher 
     degree.
       Unless . . . you're independently wealthy. This single line 
     in a massive tax bill destroys lower- and middle-class young 
     Americans' ability to pursue a professional career in 
     academia, industry, or government. The bill reduces other 
     education tax credits, which will adversely affect access to 
     undergraduate as well as graduate education. The GOP will 
     effectively end class mobility, return the academy fully to 
     the so-called one percent, and reduce charitable donations to 
     universities by de-incentivizing itemized deductions.
       Even if you don't believe in the value of academic study, 
     eliminating section 117(d) of the U.S. tax code would be bad 
     for the economy. Those who were not independently wealthy and 
     who chose to pursue graduate studies anyway would have to do 
     so with the help of student loans. Student loans are with you 
     forever; student loan debt is not forgiven even when 
     bankruptcy is declared. Young Americans are already saddled 
     with too much debt, causing many opinion pieces to complain 
     about the latest store or product that ``millennials have 
     killed'' by not spending enough money.
       Eliminating this line of tax code effectively condemns 
     those who pursue higher education to a life of debt 
     servitude. How is our economy, our country, our world to 
     progress with these barriers against access to education, an 
     essential asset in our dynamic world?

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, also, I include in the Record 
letters of opposition from the ACLU, Baptist Joint Committee, and 
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

                                                         ACLU,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 2017.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Neal, and Members of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means:


 ACLU Strongly Opposes Unconstitutional Religious Favoritism Provision 
                               in H.R. 1

       The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly 
     opposed to Sec. 5201 in H.R. 1, the so-called Tax Cuts and 
     Jobs Act. This provision is designed--in violation of the 
     Constitution--to give religious organizations special tax 
     benefits and privileges that are unavailable to all other, 
     non-religious 501(c)(3) organizations. Accordingly, we urge 
     that this unconstitutional provision be removed from the 
     bill.
       Sec. 5201 would allow a house of worship to endorse one or 
     more candidates in all of its statements, presentations, and 
     teachings made during ``religious services or gatherings.'' 
     While current law applies to all tax-exempt nonprofit 
     organizations, this provision would apply only to churches. 
     The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. 
     Constitution was designed to prevent exactly this kind of 
     religious favoritism. See, e.g. Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 
     U.S. 1 (1989) (striking down tax exemption that applied only 
     to religious periodicals). Moreover, the Free Speech Clause 
     of the First Amendment prohibits laws that engage in this 
     type of viewpoint discrimination. See Rosenberger v. Rector & 
     Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) 
     (invalidating a subsidy program that distinguished between 
     religious and nonreligious viewpoints)

[[Page H9397]]

       Sec. 5201 includes a vague and undefined test that would 
     open up houses of worship to extensive government 
     entanglement. To determine whether a house of worship is 
     complying with the law, the IRS would have to determine 
     whether an endorsement (1) occurred during the ``ordinary 
     course'' of the organization's ``regular and customary 
     activities'' in carrying out its ``tax-exempt purpose;'' (2) 
     whether it amounted to a ``de minimis incremental expense,'' 
     and (3) whether it took place during ``religious services or 
     gatherings.'' To determine whether a house of worship meets 
     this test, the IRS would have to investigate the house of 
     worship's books, activities, sermons, and correspondence. The 
     IRS would also have to judge whether an event is 
     ``religious'' and part of a house of worship's ``exempt 
     purpose.'' By inviting this type of invasive government 
     scrutiny of church documents and judgment about religion, 
     this provision actually threatens, rather than upholds, the 
     autonomy and independence of houses of worship.
       Churches and religious leaders are already able to exercise 
     their free speech--free from fear of sanction by the IRS--by 
     speaking out on political and social issues. Church leaders 
     are also completely free to support or endorse political 
     candidates as private citizens. As an organization deeply 
     committed since our founding nearly 100 years ago to 
     protecting the free speech rights of all people, the ACLU 
     would vigorously oppose any effort to chill the ability of 
     houses of worship and religious leaders to speak out on what 
     they see as the important issues of the day.
       That does not mean, however, that religious organizations 
     are entitled to receive special tax benefits and privileges 
     that are unavailable to all other 501(c)(3) organizations. 
     The ACLU strongly opposes Sec. 5201 and urges the removal of 
     this unconstitutional provision from the so-called Tax Cuts 
     and Jobs Act (H.R. 1).
       Please feel free to contact Ian Thompson, legislative 
     representative, with any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Faiz Shakir,
       National Political Director.
     Ian Thompson,
       Legislative Representative.
                                  ____

                                           Baptist Joint Committee


                                        for Religious Liberty,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of 
     the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), an 
     81-year-old agency serving 15 Baptist bodies on legal and 
     policy matters relating to religious liberty and the 
     separation of church and state, I write to express strong 
     opposition to Section 5201 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This 
     provision seriously undermines the independence and integrity 
     of our houses of worship and denominations by creating an 
     exemption to the partisan campaign prohibition that applies 
     equally to all 501(c)(3) organizations. This attempt to 
     encourage certain religious organizations to engage in 
     partisan campaigning is constitutionally problematic 
     following the Supreme Court's application of the 
     Establishment Clause in Texas Monthly v. Bullock.
       We are committed to ensuring that the free speech rights 
     for houses of worship and members of the clergy are 
     respected. We do not share the view that current law 
     prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from participating and 
     intervening in partisan candidate campaigns infringes on 
     those free speech rights. We joined with more than 100 other 
     religious and denominational organizations in a letter to 
     Congress, originally sent in April, saying we ``strongly 
     oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections in the 
     law that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses 
     of worship, from endorsing or opposing political 
     candidates.'' The full letter is attached to my testimony.
       In 2002, the House voted down legislation offered by Rep. 
     Walter Jones, called the Houses of Worship Political Speech 
     Protection Act (H.R. 2357). The BJC co-led the coalition of 
     religious groups opposing that legislation, which failed by a 
     House vote of 178-239. We continue to think there is no 
     reason to change the way the law works now, and we are very 
     concerned about the consequences of weakening the protection 
     for houses of worship. For more than 60 years, all 501(c)(3) 
     organizations have been required to refrain from partisan 
     campaign involvement in exchange for receiving that most-
     favored tax status. The prohibition has allowed charitable 
     organizations, including our houses of worship, to 
     concentrate on their exempt purposes and not be distracted or 
     co-opted by partisan campaigns.
       Current law strikes the right balance in protecting the 
     integrity and independence of our religious sector. The tax 
     law prohibition is not a divorcement of politics from houses 
     of worship. Many churches feel that they are called to be 
     ``political'' and to ``speak truth to power'' on a variety of 
     social issues, and nothing in the tax law prevents pastors 
     from speaking out from the pulpit on the issues, no matter 
     how controversial.
       Houses of worship can encourage voting, engage in voter 
     registration drives, host candidate forums, distribute 
     nonpartisan education materials, and invite all candidates 
     for an office to speak during a worship service.
       Pastors and other leaders can endorse and oppose candidates 
     in their personal capacities and without using the resources 
     of the church. Whether and how openly they want to do this is 
     a personal decision. Pastors know that their reputations will 
     rise and fall with individuals they endorse and therefore may 
     be reluctant to publicly endorse and oppose candidates. They 
     also consider the impact that their endorsements will have in 
     their spiritual communities, particularly with those who may 
     support another candidate.
       But what is not permitted--and what most clergy and 
     churchgoers don't want in any event--is for the tax-exempt 
     501(c)(3) entity to endorse or oppose candidates. Polling 
     consistently shows that large majorities--70 or 80 percent 
     depending on the survey--oppose candidate endorsements in 
     church. And when just clergy are asked, the numbers are more 
     like 90 percent, including among evangelical pastors.
       These numbers are not surprising given the negative effects 
     endorsements would have on houses of worship. Pastors and 
     churchgoers I talk with think this would be a terrible idea 
     for their congregations, dividing what are otherwise rather 
     politically diverse communities and distracting them from 
     their religious mission. Congregants also choose to worship 
     in faith communities for reasons other than hearing a 
     political ad. There are plenty of places in our culture today 
     to engage in partisan electoral campaigns. Most people I know 
     don't want church to be one of those places.
       We also recognize the powerful prophetic voice with which 
     the church speaks to power. That voice is threatened whenever 
     the church associates itself too closely with the government 
     or its officials.
       Creating an exemption for houses of worship would expose 
     churches to political pressure to endorse candidates during 
     primaries and elections at all political levels, as the 
     campaign intervention prohibition applies not only to 
     presidential and congressional elections but to every state 
     and local race, too. Many candidates and donors supporting 
     candidates would have a strong incentive to put pressure on 
     churches to become involved in their campaigns, particularly 
     given the highly-valued tax status churches enjoy. Donors to 
     churches, like all other 501(c)(3) organizations, receive a 
     tax deduction for their contributions. Churches also receive 
     automatic 501(c)(3) tax status and are not required to file 
     the Form 990 information return. Combining tax deductibility 
     with these permissible accommodations for churches would make 
     houses of worship particularly vulnerable targets for 
     partisan campaign activity by political donors and others 
     seeking to influence local, state, and national elections.
       The legislative ``solution'' that has been put forward 
     would threaten great harm to houses of worship. This bill 
     injects a new subjective standard for the IRS to enforce, 
     allowing political campaign involvement if it is ``in the 
     ordinary course of the organization's regular and customary 
     activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and results in 
     the organization incurring not more than de minimis 
     incremental expenses.'' What does ``ordinary course'' mean? 
     What is the organization's ``regular and customary activities 
     in carrying out its exempt purpose''? What is ``de minimis'' 
     compared to the organization's total budget? What is 
     ``incremental''? These are all line-drawing questions that 
     would fall on the IRS, which would have a mandate to enforce 
     this new standard with limited resources and with likely much 
     more activity in this area, given the new permissible 
     standard and political pressure to be involved. We would 
     either see lack of enforcement, rendering the statutory 
     limitations meaningless, or we would see troubling 
     entanglement of the IRS in a church's affairs. Neither 
     outcome would be an improvement on our current system.
       Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and 
     to God what is God's. Permitting tax-exempt churches to 
     endorse candidates in a ``sermon . . . or other 
     presentation'' during their ``services or gatherings'' 
     threatens to fundamentally alter the very nature of and 
     esteem for our religious sector. This approach does not bode 
     well for religion or religious liberty.
           Respectfully,

                                                 Amanda Tyler,

                                               Executive Director,
                    Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

[[Page H9398]]

     
                                  ____
     Updated, November 1, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch  McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Senate Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader 
     Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch, 
     Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: We, the 103 
     undersigned religious and denominational organizations 
     strongly oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections 
     that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of 
     worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 
     Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity 
     of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.
       Religious leaders often use their pulpits to address the 
     moral and political issues of the day. They also can, in 
     their personal capacities and without the resources of their 
     houses of worship, endorse and oppose political candidates. 
     Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any issue, 
     host candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives, 
     encourage people to vote, help transport people to the polls 
     and even, with a few boundaries, lobby on specific 
     legislation and invite candidates to speak. Tax-exempt houses 
     of worship may not, however, endorse or oppose candidates or 
     use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to candidates' 
     campaigns. Current law simply limits groups from being both a 
     tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity.
       As religious organizations, we oppose any attempt to weaken 
     the current protections offered by the 501(c)(3) campaign 
     intervention prohibition because:
       People of faith do not want partisan political fights 
     infiltrating their houses of worship. Houses of worship are 
     spaces for members of religious communities to come together, 
     not be divided along political lines; faith ought to be a 
     source of connection and community, not division and discord. 
     Indeed, the vast majority of Americans do not want houses of 
     worship to issue political endorsements. Particularly in 
     today's political climate, such endorsements would be highly 
     divisive and would have a detrimental impact on civil 
     discourse.
       Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship. If 
     houses of worship endorse candidates, their prophetic voice, 
     their ability to speak truth to power as political outsiders, 
     is threatened. The credibility and integrity of congregations 
     would suffer with bad decisions of candidates they endorsed. 
     Tying America's houses of worship to partisan activity 
     demeans the institutions from which so many believers expect 
     unimpeachable decency.
       Current law protects the independence of houses of worship. 
     Houses of worship often speak out on issues of justice and 
     morality and do good works within the community but may also 
     labor to adequately fund their ministries. Permitting 
     electioneering in churches would give partisan groups 
     incentive to use congregations as a conduit for political 
     activity and expenditures. Changing the law would also make 
     them vulnerable to individuals and corporations who could 
     offer large donations or a politician promising social 
     service contracts in exchange for taking a position on a 
     candidate. Even proposals that would permit an 
     ``insubstantial'' standard or allow limited electioneering 
     only if it is in furtherance of an organization's mission 
     would actually invite increased government intrusion, 
     scrutiny, and oversight.
       The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, 
     should not become another cog in a political machine or 
     another loophole in campaign finance laws. We strongly urge 
     you to oppose any efforts to repeal or weaken protections in 
     the law for 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of 
     worship.
           Sincerely,
       African American Ministers in Action; African Methodist 
     Episcopal Church--Social Action Commission; Alabama 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; Alliance of Baptists; 
     American Baptist Churches USA; American Baptist Home 
     Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; 
     American Jewish Committee (AJC); Anti-Defamation League; 
     Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists; B'nai 
     B'rith International; Baptist Center for Ethics; Baptist 
     Fellowship Northeast; Baptist General Association of 
     Virginia; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; 
     Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America--Bautistas por 
     la Paz; Baptist Women in Ministry; Bend the Arc: A Jewish 
     Partnership for Justice; California Council of Churches 
     IMPACT; Catholics for Choice.
       Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Central 
     Conference of American Rabbis; Christian Life Commission; 
     Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; Churchnet, a 
     ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri; 
     Colorado Council of Churches; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Heartland; Cooperative Baptist 
     Fellowship Kentucky; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of 
     Arkansas; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Florida; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia; Cooperative 
     Baptist Fellowship of Mississippi; Cooperative Baptist 
     Fellowship of North Carolina; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 
     of Oklahoma; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Texas; 
     Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia; Cooperative 
     Baptist Fellowship West; Disciples Center for Public Witness; 
     Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
       Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; The Episcopal Church; 
     Equal Partners in Faith; Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
     America; Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches; 
     Faith Action Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life; 
     Faith Voices Arkansas; Faithful America; Florida Council of 
     Churches; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on 
     National Legislation; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; 
     Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; 
     Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic Baptist Convention of 
     Texas; Interfaith Alliance; International Society for Krishna 
     Consciousness (ISKCON); Islamic Networks Group; Islamic 
     Society of North America.
       Jewish Community Relations Council, Greater Boston; Jewish 
     Community Relations Council of Greater Washington; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs; The Jewish Federations of North 
     America; Jewish Women International; Kentucky Council of 
     Churches; Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; 
     National Baptist Convention of America; National Council of 
     Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; National Sikh 
     Campaign; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New 
     Baptist Covenant; North Carolina Council of Churches; 
     Oklahoma Conference of Churches; Pastors for Oklahoma Kids; 
     Pastors for Texas Children; Pax Christi, Montgomery County, 
     MD chapters; Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
       Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office of Public 
     Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; 
     Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assembly; Religions for Peace 
     USA; Religious Institute; Rhode Island State Council of 
     Churches; Seventh-day Adventist Church in North 
     America; South Carolina Christian Action Council; South 
     Dakota Faith in Public Life; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for 
     Human Rights; Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; 
     Texas Baptists Committed; Texas Faith Network; Texas 
     Impact; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist 
     Association; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; 
     Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice; United Church 
     of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; The United 
     Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
     Virginia Council of Churches; Women of Reform Judaism; 
     Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).
                                  ____

         Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
     Re Oppose Section 5201 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which 
         Exempts Houses of Worship from the Johnson Amendment.

     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of 
     Americans United for Separation of Church and State, we urge 
     you to strip Section 5201 from H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
     Act. This provision would exempt houses of worship from the 
     Johnson Amendment, which is the six-decades-old law that 
     ensures tax-exempt organizations--including houses of 
     worship, charitable nonprofits, and foundations--do not 
     endorse or oppose political candidates. We join 103 religious 
     and denomination organizations, more than 4,200 faith 
     leaders, and 5,500 nonprofits organizations, in urging 
     Members of Congress to reject efforts, like the one in 
     Section 5201, to weaken or repeal the Johnson Amendment.
       Tax-exempt charities and houses of worship are granted 
     special 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status because they work for the 
     common good, not so they can support political candidates. 
     Current law protects their right to speak out about political 
     and social issues while, at the same time, ensuring they are 
     not pressured by political candidates and campaigns seeking 
     their own political gain. Indeed, under current law, tax-
     exempt houses of worship and the faith leaders who represent 
     them can speak to any issue or piece of legislation they 
     choose. And faith leaders can endorse candidates in their 
     personal capacity.
       Exempting houses of worship from the law would threaten 
     their independence and integrity and open them up to pressure 
     from political candidates, donors, and congregants who want 
     to use them for their own political gain. Furthermore, 
     Section 5201 singles out houses of worship for special 
     treatment, violating the Constitution.


   SECTION 5201 EXEMPTS HOUSES OF WORSHIP FROM THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT

       Section 5201 allows houses of worship to endorse candidates 
     so long the endorsement

[[Page H9399]]

     is made during a religious service or gathering, is made in 
     the ordinary course of their tax-exempt purpose, and does not 
     incur more than a de minimis incremental expense. This would, 
     in effect, exempt houses of worship from the Johnson 
     Amendment.
       The impact of even just one endorsement from a house of 
     worship would be powerful and could have a significant impact 
     on an election, but this provision permits far more than 
     merely a lone statement of support. Section 5201, for 
     example, would allow:
       A pastor to preach a sermon endorsing one or more 
     candidates. His church could then post a video of that sermon 
     on its website, email it to parishioners, and distribute it 
     publicly on social media.
       A Rabbi to endorse a candidate during the welcoming message 
     provided to those attending her synagogue's community service 
     event.
       A church that is motivated by faith to provide social 
     services to the public to tell each and every person who 
     attends its meetings to vote for a particular candidate.
       If such activities were allowed, the Johnson Amendment 
     would be rendered meaningless as applied to houses of 
     worship. The very purpose of the Johnson Amendment--to 
     prevent government subsidized partisan campaign activity--
     would be allowed in every church and house of worship across 
     the country.


 SECTION 5201 WOULD REQUIRE THE IRS TO LOOK INTO THE INTERNAL WORKINGS 
           OF HOUSES OF WORSHIP AND MAKE POLITICAL JUDGMENTS

       The Johnson Amendment includes a clear rule: tax-exempt 
     organizations, including houses of worship, cannot endorse 
     candidates. This bill includes a vague and undefined test 
     that is subject to IRS discretion. Enforcing the law would 
     entangle the IRS in internal church governance and require it 
     to make judgments about religion.
       Section 5201 calls on the IRS to determine whether an 
     endorsement (1) occurred during the ``ordinary course'' of 
     the organization's ``regular and customary activities'' in 
     carrying out its ``tax-exempt purpose;'' (2) whether it 
     amounted to a ``de minimis incremental expense,'' and (3) 
     whether it took place during ``religious services or 
     gatherings.'' To determine whether the cost of any 
     endorsement was a ``de minimis incremental expense,'' the IRS 
     would, not only have to define de minimis, but also have to 
     investigate the house of worship's books. And to determine 
     whether the endorsement was part of the ``regular and 
     customary activities,'' the IRS would have to examine the 
     institution's history of activities. The IRS would also have 
     to judge whether an event is ``religious'' or not and whether 
     the activity serves the organization's ``exempt purpose.'' By 
     inviting that type of scrutiny of church documents and 
     activities, and judgments about religion, this bill actually 
     threatens, rather than upholds, the autonomy and independence 
     of houses of worship.


   EXEMPTING ONLY HOUSES OF WORSHIP FROM THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT WOULD 
                        VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION

       Under the religious freedom protections provided by the 
     First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government 
     cannot prefer or favor religion or non-religion. The Johnson 
     Amendment applies to all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, 
     yet Section 5201 exempts only houses of worship from the 
     restrictions of the Johnson Amendment. This special treatment 
     raises serious concerns under the Establishment Clause of the 
     First Amendment and undermines religious freedom.


                               CONCLUSION

       For all the above reasons, we urge you to oppose the 
     language effectively repealing the Johnson Amendment for 
     houses of worship.
           Sincerely,
     Maggie Garrett,
       Legislative Director, Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State.

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and 
one of the most knowledgeable Members of the House.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a horror show today, this is a horror show 
debate, and this is a horror show process, but it is a disaster for the 
American people.
  The tax bill we are debating today will abandon millions of American 
families. It showers the wealthy and corporations with massive tax 
cuts, and it adds $1.5 trillion to our deficits. The top 1 percent get 
this massive payout in the neighborhood of $500 billion; hardworking 
families get pocket change.
  But millions don't even get that. In fact, 36 million middle class 
families will pay more in taxes because of this bill. Our Republican 
colleagues will be taking money out of the pockets of these families to 
give more tax cuts to the rich.
  But it doesn't stop there. It never does. This is part of a dangerous 
three-step process that we have seen, unfortunately, far too often:
  The first step, Republicans enact massive tax cuts for the rich, 
claiming they will generate enough growth to pay for themselves. I know 
my Republican colleagues desperately want the American people to 
believe that this is what will happen. But the record is clear. It 
failed in the 1980s, and it failed in the 2000s. It was an epic failure 
in Kansas.
  This is about politics, not reality, for them, which brings us to 
step two. Once these cuts fail to produce the growth that they promise, 
Republicans will shriek about the impending doom of high deficits and 
debt. Then they will quickly move to step three, demanding cuts in 
vital programs that benefit working families throughout our country.
  We have seen this act before. As I said before, it is a horror show. 
There is a reason why a lot of people are looking at this and saying 
this is the great tax scam of 2017--because it is the great tax scam of 
2017.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), one of the key leaders of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is what 
separates us from the rest of the world. It promises that, with hard 
work and determination, you can improve your station in life and that 
your children have an opportunity for a better life than yours. But for 
many in the generation coming of age in the last decade, the American 
Dream has been a little tarnished and just out of reach.
  The last time we did tax reform was 30 years ago. At that time, we 
were the world's uncontested economic leader. Our economic system and 
Tax Code were competitive. But for decades, we have sat by as the world 
passed us by.
  In 1990, the middle class was about 50 percent of American families; 
today, only 40 percent. Today, the middle class makes just about the 
same take-home pay as it did in 1990.
  When we all worry about income disparity and the gulf between the 
rich and the poor in this country, this is the source of the problem. 
The American middle class is smaller and has not had a raise in 30 
years.
  How could this happen? It has everything to do with a bloated, 
overregulating, and overtaxing Federal Government, a government that 
sucks the life out of the economy and forces our companies, our 
innovators, and our job creators out of our country to survive.
  Some folks say it doesn't matter that we have the highest business 
tax rate in the world. That is not why our companies left. They say 
those jobs aren't coming back.
  Well, I say the outdated Tax Code is an anchor around the neck of our 
businesses, our innovators, and the American middle class. I say the 
American worker can compete with anyone on a level playing field if we 
just get government off their back.
  Since January, we have been working to correct that. We have made 
dramatic steps in reducing regulation. You can already see the economic 
lift.
  Today, we undertake a tax cut, which will restore economic growth, 
put more take-home pay into the pockets of hardworking Americans, and 
restore opportunity for a generation of Americans. It will bring 
American jobs back to America, which will grow our middle class and, 
finally, after 30 years, our middle class will get the pay raise it 
deserves.
  If you really wish to grow our economy, you should vote for this 
bill.
  If you really wish to give the middle class a pay raise, you should 
vote for this bill.
  If you really wish to reduce income disparity, you should vote for 
this bill.
  If you really wish to give hope to Americans who have given up and 
left the workforce and wish to reduce crime and addiction in this 
country, you should vote for this bill.
  If you want America to have the economic strength to remain a force 
of peace and stability in the world, you should vote for this bill.
  And, finally, if you truly believe what Thomas Jefferson said 240 
years ago, that all men are created equal and that they are entitled to 
pursue their own happiness, you should vote for this bill.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

[[Page H9400]]

  

  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this bill put forward 
by congressional Republicans isn't a tax plan; it is a tax scam.
  Republicans are going to borrow money on the backs of working 
families to give a tax cut to corporations in the top 1 percent. This 
will increase taxes on the middle class. This will add to our Nation's 
debt and pass the bill to our children.
  This Republican tax scam hurts seniors and families with long-term 
medical needs by eliminating the medical expense deduction that 9 
million Americans, and nearly 120,000 people in my home State of New 
Mexico, depend upon.

  Destroying the medical expense deduction delivers a staggering blow 
to New Mexico families. Listen to this story sent to me by Lisa, a 
constituent of mine from northern New Mexico:
  ``My husband and I are lifelong native New Mexicans who grew up here, 
went to college here, and have opened and operate our two businesses in 
our home State. We are the proud parents of two wonderful children. New 
Mexico's our home, and we're proud to live here, contribute to our 
State's economy, and realize our version of the American Dream.
  ``Like most families today, life isn't always easy. The kids and I 
have medically complex conditions which require expensive medications, 
and my husband and I struggle with student loan debt, housing and 
transportation costs, and making a good life for our family. We incur 
$5,000 to $7,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs each year. Without the 
medical expense deductions, I am not sure we could continue to meet the 
demands of raising healthy, happy children while keeping our businesses 
going and growing.
  ``For us, this deduction is a lifeline, and the thought of losing 
that lifeline means we could drown in debt. That's not the American 
Dream--that's a nightmare.''
  This is real and this is personal to people all across the country. 
Let's vote this bill down today, come back, work in a bipartisan 
fashion, work with our ranking member, Mr. Richard Neal, and come up 
with real tax reform that puts American working families first.
  Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing today and put hardworking 
families first with our decision today.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Marchant), a key leader on the Tax Policy Subcommittee.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this issue. It is an honor for me to serve on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act. This is a historic opportunity to reject the status quo and 
provide real tax relief to the families, individuals, and businesses in 
my district.
  America's Tax Code is broken. It is uncompetitive for American 
companies, and it is unfair to American workers. The American people 
deserve a Tax Code that works for them, not one that works for special 
interests in Washington. They deserve a Tax Code that rewards their 
lifetime of hard work, not one that squeezes and depletes their 
savings.

                              {time}  1045

  They deserve a Tax Code that prioritizes their goals, not penalizes 
their success.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act creates a Tax Code that is focused on 
growth, fairness, and a booming economy for everyone.
  The reforms in this bill level the playing field for small businesses 
in my district in north Texas around the DFW Airport, giving them an 
opportunity to grow and hire more people and spend more money in our 
economy, and allow the hardworking taxpayers whom I represent to keep 
more of their paycheck and increase their family's budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me to represent the 
views of my constituents throughout the process of the committee work. 
I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this very historic 
opportunity and vote in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), a very thoughtful member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, or 
better known as the GOP tax scam.
  This bill provides tax cuts for corporations and multimillionaires at 
the expense of hardworking middle class families. Massive corporate tax 
cuts do not guarantee job growth or higher wages. The only thing 
guaranteed is the $2.3 trillion that this scam adds to the deficit.
  Democrats are serious about passing comprehensive tax reform that is 
fair and that puts a little more money in the pockets of working 
Americans. This fiasco of a bill is not fair.
  Corporations get a massive 15 percent tax cut, but what do working 
families get? They get nickeled and dimed.
  Despite student loan debts surpassing $1 trillion, this bill 
eliminates the student loan interest deduction, which only allows those 
earning $80,000 or less to claim it in the first place, squarely 
hurting middle class Americans who are trying to pay off debt, save for 
a home, or buy a new car.
  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct expenses for school 
supplies that they purchase with their own money for their classrooms, 
yet corporations are able to deduct the cost of those same supplies 
that they purchase.
  Seniors and people with chronic illnesses would no longer be able to 
deduct some of the cost of their treatment. At a time when many 
families are feeling the pressures of affording care for their children 
and their aging parents, this bill takes money right out of their 
pockets.
  Under this bill, 29 million households would lose their property tax 
deduction. Eighty percent of middle class homeowners would lose, 
compared with just 13 percent of high-income earners. Does that sound 
fair?
  Finally, the elimination of the State and local income tax deduction 
disproportionately impacts middle-income families, especially those in 
California, whose residents would see an overall net tax increase of 
$12.1 billion.
  The Tax Code is a reflection of our values. The Republicans have 
clearly chosen who they serve--the wealthy and corporations--but I am 
concerned about the 36 million Americans who will see a tax increase, 
teachers and their students, and people with preexisting conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disaster of 
a bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to 
this bill, one from SEIU and one from the AFL-CIO.

                                                         SEIU,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, House Committee on Ways & Means,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways & Means, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Neal, and Members of 
     the House Committee on Ways & Means: On behalf of the two 
     million members of the Service Employees International Union 
     (``SEIU''), I write to strongly oppose H.R. 1, the 
     misleadingly named ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.'' H.R. 1 would 
     double down on the same failed trickle down policies that 
     have hurt working families for decades. Once again, major 
     legislation is being drafted behind closed doors, out of the 
     view of the American people and without any input from 
     Democratic members of Congress.
       It is unconscionable that elected representatives would 
     mark-up and jam through a bill that significantly affects the 
     financial security of their constituents without appropriate 
     time for non-partisan analysis and for all Americans to 
     properly understand the real impacts on their everyday lives. 
     There is no need to rush legislation of this magnitude 
     through Congress due to artificial political timelines. 
     Instead, there should be an open process by which all 
     stakeholders including working people and not just corporate 
     lobbyists are able to provide input.
       Although this bill pretends to benefit the middle class, 
     the tax cuts proposed under this bill would go overwhelmingly 
     to high-income households and large corporations. And this 
     bill would actually raise taxes for some low- and moderate-
     income households, while making it harder for states to fund 
     healthcare, education, infrastructure and other investments. 
     History has shown us that these types of tax breaks never 
     `trickle down' to working people and will result in cuts to 
     healthcare, education and other programs our communities 
     depend on. If passed, this legislation would give 
     millionaires and corporations a reason to celebrate but would 
     hurt working Americans who are trying put food on the table, 
     start their first businesses, send their children to college, 
     or save for their retirement and buy homes.
       For these reasons, SEIU urges you to oppose H.R. 1 and 
     instead, work in a bi-partisan

[[Page H9401]]

     and transparent manner on policies that will improve the 
     lives of working families. If you have any questions, please 
     contact John Foti.
           Sincerely,
                                                        John Gray,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you 
     to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1). H.R. 1 is not a 
     ``jobs bill,'' it is a job killer that gives huge tax breaks 
     to companies that outsource jobs. It is also the poster child 
     for the failed ``trickle-down'' economic theory that has 
     never worked and has repeatedly stuck working people with the 
     tab for tax giveaways for millionaires, big corporations, and 
     Wall Street.
       The Republican leadership wants to pay for these giveaways 
     with drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, education, and other 
     programs that working people depend on. The price tag of H.R. 
     1 is $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while the budget resolution 
     includes $5 trillion in budget cuts, including $1.5 trillion 
     from Medicaid and Medicare.
       H.R 1 would waste trillions of dollars on tax breaks for 
     people who do not need them. According to the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation (JCT), 45% of the tax benefits would ultimately 
     go to households making over $500,000 per year; 38% of the 
     tax benefits would go to households making over $1 million; 
     and the top 1% one percent would get an average annual tax 
     cut of $64,720. By contrast, households making between 
     $20,000 and $40,000 would actually pay more in taxes.
       H.R. 1 would hurt working people in many ways. It would 
     eliminate the deduction for state and local income and sales 
     taxes, punishing states that make the kind of investments 
     that create good jobs and starving communities of the funding 
     they need for education, infrastructure, and other essential 
     public services. H.R. 1 would repeal deductions for student 
     loan interest, tuition expenses, and tuition assistance and 
     end tax credits for students to cover college expenses, 
     making it harder for students and their families to afford 
     higher education at a time when tuition prices are at an all-
     time high. Under this bill, corporations could still deduct 
     their payments to lawyers to fight unions, but union members 
     could no longer deduct union dues and educators could no 
     longer deduct their out-of-pocket expenses.
       On the corporate side, H.R. 1 would give a giant tax cut to 
     big corporations that outsource jobs. Under this bill, a 
     business that creates jobs on Main Street USA would pay U.S. 
     taxes on its profits at a rate of 20%, while a big 
     corporation that outsources those same jobs to Ireland or 
     Switzerland would pay no U.S. taxes on the profits it earns 
     from outsourcing. Currently, the United States taxes all 
     profits of U.S. corporations, whether earned in the United 
     States or in a foreign country, at the same rate of 35% 
     (though a corporation that earns profits in a foreign country 
     does not have to pay U.S. taxes on those earnings until it 
     repatriates them to the United States). H.R. 1 changes this 
     system so a U.S. corporation never pays any U.S. income taxes 
     on the profits it earns from active operations in a foreign 
     country (as opposed to domestic profits that the company 
     disguises as foreign profits through the use of accounting 
     gimmicks). Reducing the U.S. tax rate on offshore profits 
     from 35% to 0%--basically a subsidy to companies that 
     outsource jobs--would cost $208 billion over 10 years. Even 
     worse, the bill would encourage foreign countries that want 
     to attract offshore investment to lower their corporate tax 
     rate. The more foreign countries lower their corporate tax 
     rates to attract offshore investment, the bigger the tax 
     subsidy for offshoring this bill will provide. The GOP tax 
     bill creates a powerful incentive for big companies to 
     outsource jobs, and it is an incentive that will grow over 
     time.
       With regard to past profits, the Institute on Taxation and 
     Economic Policy (ITEP) estimates that H.R. 1 would give 
     multinational corporations a tax windfall of $529 billion, 
     allowing them to get away with paying just $223 billion of 
     the $752 billion they owe on accumulated offshore earnings. 
     There is no economic case for discounted tax rates on profits 
     already earned. The last time we gave companies a break on 
     the profits they booked offshore, they used that money for 
     executive bonuses and dividends. They did not use the money 
     for creating new jobs, raises for workers, or investments in 
     new factories or equipment. The top 15 companies to take 
     advantage of the so-called ``tax holiday'' in 2004 laid off 
     20,000 workers in the subsequent two years. There is no 
     reason to believe this time will be different. JPMorgan says, 
     ``We expect little economic effect from firms repatriating 
     funds to the U.S.''
       The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
     (H.R. 1), which gives huge tax breaks to companies that 
     outsource jobs and makes working people pay the price for tax 
     giveaways to millionaires, big corporations, and Wall Street.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                          Director, Government Affairs Department.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), our chief deputy whip.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee for his hard work and effort, his staff's effort, and his 
committee members' effort to put this great bill on the floor today.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a vitally important bill. This will help 
all Americans' lives for the better. The name fits for this bill as 
well. It truly is a tax cut for American working families, and it 
creates good-paying jobs.
  The bill is the result of over 3 years of hard work here in the House 
of Representatives. It has been clear for years that our Tax Code is 
broken. We all agree on that. Simply put, it does not work for the vast 
majority of the American people.
  What we do is simplify the Tax Code. More Americans will be able to 
take a standard deduction, file on a postcard their tax return, 
simplifying the process. Importantly, it makes us more competitive 
internationally so we don't lose jobs to overseas companies. That makes 
us stronger as a nation.
  At the same time, it helps small businesses compete with those large 
businesses, with those global businesses, and makes sure that our Main 
Streets are strong in America.
  This is a very good bill. It is a very good bill, well contemplated, 
and will have a great impact on working families.
  The bill helps families in my district in particular. The Tax 
Foundation says that average middle class families in my district in 
western North Carolina are going to see a $2,400 increase in their 
take-home pay. That is real money for working Americans. It is real 
money for North Carolinians as well.
  The bill also helps small businesses by reducing their tax rates and 
allowing them to create more good-paying jobs. We need that. Small 
businesses are the lifeblood of western North Carolina's communities. 
We need them strengthened.
  The same Tax Foundation study estimates that this bill will create 
nearly a million new jobs nationwide, including more than 30,000 in 
North Carolina alone.
  Now, there is a great debate in this body about the approach we took 
on this bill. There is a fundamental disagreement between the two 
parties here.
  My colleagues on the left want more power, more expenditures from 
government, and want to take more from the American people in order to 
pay for that.
  We believe, on the Republican side of the aisle, that American 
families should be able to keep more of what they earn, make more 
decisions for themselves, empower communities, empower small 
businesses, make us more competitive and make us stronger.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, to send a strong message 
that we in the House of Representatives have a strong tax package for 
the American people. I look forward to getting this bill signed into 
law before Christmas.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chairman of the Democratic 
Caucus and a great leader on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have to give it to Speaker Ryan and to President Trump and all of 
my Republican colleagues. I have to give them their due. They announced 
earlier this year they would cut taxes for corporate special interests, 
and today they are following through on that promise.
  The problem is, in order to do it, they are raising taxes on middle 
class families. Don't take my word for it. Listen to them.
  The Republicans started this process by saying that every American, 
everyone in America, will get a tax cut. Now they are saying, on 
average, people will get a tax cut, and even that is incorrect.
  It is time to be honest with the American people. What we have before

[[Page H9402]]

us today isn't a bill, it is a scam--a scam that will hurt homeowners 
in Irvine, California, in Mrs. Walters' district; a scam that will hurt 
seniors in Lancaster, New York, in Congressman Chris Collins' district; 
a scam that will hurt students in Toms River, New Jersey, in Tom 
MacArthur's district; a scam that will hurt veterans in Barrington, 
Illinois, in Pete Roskam's district; and a scam that will absolutely 
hurt the middle class in every congressional district in our country, 
36 million people to be exact.
  In my district, a quarter of all homeowners will lose the ability to 
deduct their taxes, but corporate special interests, they can still 
deduct their taxes under the GOP plan.
  Mr. Speaker, 20,000 students in Queens and the Bronx, in my district, 
will lose one of the most effective ways to pay down their student loan 
debt. That is right. Republicans are eliminating the ability to deduct 
the interest on student loan payments.
  This scam eliminates the assistance for small businesses to hire 
veterans here at home, but it continues the tax breaks to ship American 
jobs overseas. Yes, you heard that correctly. Republicans and President 
Trump are doling out tax breaks for companies to move overseas but will 
take away benefits to hire American veterans right here at home.
  These aren't the values of my constituents, but, apparently, they are 
the values of Speaker Ryan, President Trump, and the entire 
congressional Republican caucus.
  So how did we end up here? It is because when the Republicans sat 
down to write this bill, they didn't have the average American in mind. 
They had their wealthy donors and corporate friends in mind. 
Republicans started tax reform with this question: How do we get 
the corporate rate down? Democrats would have started with the 
question: How do we raise up the middle class?

  Republicans wrote a bill, a tax scam, that benefits people who own 
second and third homes, but they left behind average American 
homeowners. They left behind teachers, who use their own money to buy 
school supplies. They left average Americans behind, because they never 
had you in mind to begin with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from 
New York an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hardworking Americans 
throughout this country, I say, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 1 percent.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his 
efforts to get this tax reform bill done.
  Our outdated and uncompetitive Tax Code has led to slow economic 
growth over the past decade in America. Today, we are taking an 
important step to fix that. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reform the 
Tax Code and help foster economic growth.
  For more than three decades, families have paid a growing cost for 
our country's increasingly complex and burdensome Tax Code that is 
chockfull of special interest loopholes. This is not fair.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will simplify the process of filing taxes 
by doubling the size of the standard deduction and removing the need 
for millions to itemize their deductions. It will provide tax cuts to 
millions of middle-income working families.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also includes many tax reforms for 
businesses in order to spur economic growth. The bill makes it easier 
for entrepreneurs to start businesses, and it brings down the corporate 
tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent to be in line with our 
competitors around the world.
  This will help spur economic growth by encouraging businesses to move 
their capital and jobs back to the United States and will help lower 
prices for Americans, who are the ones who ultimately pay for high 
corporate taxes through higher prices.
  I'm proud that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is focused on growing the 
economy, bringing jobs back to Main Street, and increasing paychecks 
for workers. This bill is committed to helping families because the 
family unit is the cornerstone of our nation. We made a promise to 
families that we'd deliver them tax relief--and we're holding to it. 
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will fix our bureaucratic tax nightmare and 
puts families first again.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the son of a preacher man, 
who always speaks truth to power.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 
Republicans can dress it up and call it good names, but that will not 
change the fact that H.R. 1 is a scam that will be perpetrated on 
America's middle-income families.
  This bill will make it harder to own a home, raise a family, and 
afford a postsecondary education.
  It should come as no surprise that President Trump wanted to call the 
bill: ``Cut, Cut, Cut.'' That would have been apropos. The first cut is 
for him and his family, the second cut is for his wealthy friends, and 
the third cut is for large corporations and businesses that ship jobs 
overseas.
  H.R. 1 certainly does not cut taxes for middle-income families or 
small businesses; in fact, it does just the opposite.
  Under H.R. 1, millions of Americans, middle-income families, will pay 
more--500,000 of whom live in South Carolina. Middle-income families 
and first-time homeowners who utilize mortgage interest deductions will 
pay more, because the GOP scam lowers the cap, making homeownership 
more expensive and driving down property taxes for current homeowners.
  Middle-income families with children in college or recent graduates 
will pay more, because the GOP scam eliminates deductions for interest 
on student loans. This includes 12 million American families, 156,000 
of whom are South Carolinians.

                              {time}  1100

  Middle-income families struggling to pay costly medical bills will 
pay more because the GOP scam shamefully eliminates that deductibility. 
This includes 9 million American families, and nearly 140,000 live in 
South Carolina.
  Middle-income families with children in daycare, nursery school, or 
aging parents will pay more because the GOP scam eliminates the 
deductions for dependent care assistance.
  Middle-income schoolteachers will pay more because the GOP scam 
eliminates their ability to deduct the cost of the supplies they 
purchase for their classrooms.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is an attack on middle-income families. It will 
subject the good people of this country to a second Great Recession and 
raise taxes on 36 million middle-income households.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this GOP 
tax scam will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years 
and trigger massive funding cuts across the government next year. 
Medicare will see a $25 billion-per-year cut.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the gentleman from Texas in 
a colloquy.
  We should not be satisfied with the historically low economic growth 
rates of the past decade. This tax reform bill that creates jobs, 
increases paychecks, grows our economy, and increases American 
competitiveness can help Maryland families and businesses.
  The bill we are considering today has many positive elements that 
will benefit our country in many ways. However, I am concerned about 
its impact on some of my constituents in Maryland who pay high State 
and local income taxes. I ask you, as the Ways and Means chairman, to 
continue to work with me to ensure that families and job creators in my 
district will all be helped by this legislation.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding.
  The intent of our tax reform bill is to achieve tax relief for 
individuals at every income level in every State.
  I agree with the gentleman, there are still some areas where we will 
and can

[[Page H9403]]

make improvements. If the gentleman is willing to help us continue to 
move this process forward today, I am happy to commit to working with 
him to ensure we reach a positive outcome for his constituents to 
reconcile our differences with the Senate.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for agreeing to work 
with me on this as we move forward. I will be voting for this bill 
today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill to increase 
American competitiveness.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democrat on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee who understands the impact of double taxation from a 
donor State.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, someone near and dear to me once said that 
the Republican Party is the party of rich men and women, and the 
Democratic Party is the party of working men and women. Nothing proves 
that more than this tax scam today.
  I have been around here a long time. Of all the bills I have seen, 
this is one of the worst bills I have ever seen on the floor of this 
House. It is actually a disaster. It raises taxes on the middle class 
and on millions of families across America. It adds trillions to the 
debt to give tax cuts to America's wealthy families and corporations 
while stripping credits and deductions from middle class families.
  What ever happened to the fiscal responsibility of the Republican 
Party?
  This budget ransacks Medicare and Medicaid of $1.5 trillion, and the 
GOP will use the new deficits to justify further devastating Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  Finally, it is a terrible disaster for my New York constituents who 
already pay their fair share of taxes. New York is a donor State, 
meaning that we pay more to the Federal Government than what we get in 
return.
  This will reduce or eliminate key deductions, such as curbing or 
eliminating deductibility of State and local taxes, mortgage interest 
deductions, college debt, student loans.
  We are a high-tax State. This is a disaster. Scrap this disaster. Go 
back to the drawing board and write a bill which is fair to middle 
class taxpayers.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the voice of Houston.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American Dream tax 
plan. This is the American nightmare, a tax scam of the worst 
proportion.
  With over 8,000 of my constituents last evening on a teleconference 
town hall meeting, overwhelmingly they disagreed with a tax plan that 
cuts Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts, eliminates the mortgage 
tax deduction, so that those who are suffering from Hurricane Harvey, 
trying to rebuild their lives, seeking a new home cannot, in fact, 
deduct their mortgage.
  The same thing with the 200,000 Texans who are going to pay more 
because we are eliminating the deduction for State and local taxes, and 
eliminating deductions for student loans, casualty losses; by next 
year, $25 billion in Social Security cuts.
  My seniors on the phone last night asked me about those cuts. They 
asked me about the medical expenses cuts for seniors. All of that is 
eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a sample of tele-townhall survey 
questions and answers

             Tax Tele-Townhall Survey Questions and Answers

       (1) Do you agree that a tax bill should cut tax at the 
     expense of Medicaid and Medicare? 95 percent said no.
       (2) The current tax reform bill will eliminate the tax 
     deduction for student loan interest and the lifetime learning 
     credit. Do you support the elimination of these tax credits? 
     91 percent said no.
       (3) The current tax code allows homeowners to deduct 
     interest on mortgages. Would you support a tax plan that 
     includes a reduction in credit for first-time home buyers? 95 
     percent said no.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this plan will show no growth. The 
neutral tax policy entity said you will get no growth, no growth in 
wages, and you will send jobs overseas in waves.
  It is a tax scam and it is an American nightmare. Vote against this 
tax scam
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong 
and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called ``Tax Cut and Jobs 
Act,'' which more accurately should be called the ``Republican Tax Scam 
Act.''
  I oppose this cruel and immoral $1.7 trillion tax giveaway to wealthy 
corporations and the top one percent because it raises taxes on poor, 
working, and middle class families; explodes the deficit by adding an 
additional $2.2 trillion over ten years; and will require an estimated 
$5.4 trillion cut in funding for the programs ordinary Americans depend 
on for health security, educational opportunity, and economic progress.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are not fooled; they know trickle-down 
economics has never worked, and they see right through this phony tax 
plan and recognize it for the scam that it is.
  That is why Americans reject this Republican tax giveaway by an 
overwhelming 2:1 margin according to a poll released yesterday by 
Quinnipiac.
  Specifically, 61 percent think the Republican tax scam will benefit 
the wealthy the most; only 16 percent say the plan will reduce their 
taxes.
  59 percent think it is a very bad idea to eliminate the deduction for 
state and local income taxes.
  Nearly half of respondents (40 percent) think it a bad idea to lower 
the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.
  This Republican tax plan is even more toxic to my constituents in the 
Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, as you may know, my constituents and others in Texas are 
still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane 
Harvey, the worst storm ever to make landfall in the continental United 
States.
  Yet last evening, nearly 8,000 of them took time out of their busy 
schedules to join me in a tele-townhall to discuss the tax scheme that 
has been rushed to the floor for a vote by the Republican leadership in 
the hope of passing it before the American people learn its insidious 
details.
  But I have got news for them: too late.
  My constituents understand and let me know that they believe it is 
important that the United States has a tax system that is fair, 
balanced, smart, and provides the resources and opportunities to allow 
all Americans to reach their potential.
  And by margins exceeding 90 percent, they reject:
  1. Any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts for wealthy 
corporations and the top 1 percent;
  2. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction;
  3. Eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes;
  4. Eliminating existing deductions for student loan interest or 
making taxable college endowment funds or college fellowships expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents, and Americans across the country, 
oppose this unfair Republican tax giveaway because nearly half of the 
$1.7 trillion tax cut goes to just the top one percent.
  In fact, the average annual tax cut for the top one-tenth of one 
percent is $320,000; for the top one percent it is $62,000, and for 
those earning $1 million a year it is $68,000.
  Nearly 25 percent of the tax cut goes to households in just the top 
one-tenth of one percent, who make at least $5 million a year (2027).
  While super-wealthy corporations and individuals are reaping 
windfalls, millions of middle-class and working families will see their 
taxes go up:
  1. 13 million households face a tax increase next year.
  2. 45 million households face a tax increase in 2027.
  3. 29 million households (21 percent) earning less than $100,000 a 
year see a tax increase.
  On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 
increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families 
struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.
  It is shocking, but not surprising, that under this Republican tax 
scam, the total value of tax cuts for just the top one percent is more 
than the entire tax cut for the lower 95 percent of earners.
  Put another way, those earning more than $912,000 a year will get 
more in tax cuts than 180 million households combined.
  The core of this Republican tax scheme is a massive tax cut from 35 
percent to 20 percent for corporations, but that is not the only way 
that the wealthy are rewarded.
  The massive tax cuts for corporations are permanent but temporary for 
working and middle-class families.
  Another immoral aspect of this terrible tax scam is that it abandons 
families that face natural disasters or high medical costs by repealing 
deductions for casualty losses and medical expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, in what universe does it make any sense to eliminate, as 
this bill would, a deduction for:

[[Page H9404]]

  1. Teachers who purchase supplies for their classroom;
  2. Moving expenses to take a new job and taxes employer-provided 
moving expenses; or
  3. Dependent care assistance, making it harder for families to afford 
day care, nursery school, or care for aging parents?
  This Republican tax scam jeopardizes American innovation and 
competitiveness by eliminating the deduction for student loan interest, 
which affects 12 million borrowers, and cuts total education assistance 
by more than $64 billion.
  Under the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and the 
determined efforts of ordinary Americans, we pulled our way out from 
under the worst of the foreclosure crisis when the housing bubble burst 
in 2007.
  Inexplicably, Republicans are now championing a tax scheme that will 
make the homes of average Americans less valuable because deductions 
for mortgage interest and property taxes are much less valuable than 
under current law.
  A tax plan that reduces home values, as this one does, puts pressure 
on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, 
roads, and vital public resources.
  Mr. Speaker, an estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state 
and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.
  But this is not the end of the bad news that will be delivered were 
this tax scam to become law, not by a long shot.
  The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions 
of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and 
claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions 
were claimed in the Lone Star State.
  Equally terrible is that this Republican tax scam drastically reduces 
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million 
low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an 
average credit of $2,689.
  The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, 
including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.
  So to achieve their goal of giving more and more to the haves and the 
``have mores,'' our Republican friends are willing to betray seniors, 
children, the most vulnerable and needy, and working and middle-class 
families.
  The $5.4 trillion cuts in program investments that will be required 
to pay for this tax giveaway to wealthy corporations and individuals 
will fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to 
afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
  America will not be made great by financing a $1.7 trillion tax cut 
for the rich by stealing $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, 
abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of 
realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or 
disinvesting in the working families.
  America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, 
interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific 
research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy 
just to pay for a tax cut to corporations and individuals who do not 
even need it.
  Mr. Speaker, the tax scheme presented here by Republicans is not a 
plan but a scam that represents a betrayal of our values as a nation.
  This tax scam is not a revenue policy adapted for the real world that 
real Americans live in but a fantasy resting on the monstrous belief 
that the wealthy have too little money and that poor, working, and 
middle-class families have too much.
  Our Republican friends continue to cling to the fantasy belief that 
their tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves despite all 
precedent to the contrary and evidence that their tax scheme is 
projected by experts to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, in evaluating the merits of a taxing system, it is not 
enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.
  To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's 
present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the plan must also pass 
a ``moral test.''
  The Republican tax bill fails both of these standards.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the ``Republican Tax Scam Act,'' and urge 
all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and 
heartless proposal that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-
being of middle and working class families, and the poor and vulnerable 
`caught in the tentacles of circumstance.'
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  So I note that constituents in the 18th District of Texas, the past 
speaker's district, that average families will see a tax cut of nearly 
$1,000, and Texas will grow 81,000 new jobs and see higher paychecks as 
a result of this tax reform bill.
  We are proposing a Tax Code so fair and simple, 9 out of 10 Americans 
will be able to file using a simple postcard system. There is a 
fairness and equality for each American--knowing what each others' 
deductions are because we have exactly the same ones.
  This simplicity, this fairness, these larger paychecks, this is what 
the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the leader of the Republican 
Conference.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
tremendous leadership on this important legislation this morning.
  I am proud to rise in support of enacting tax reform, tax relief to 
millions of Americans. We have been waiting a long time, more than 30 
years. And while everything else has changed over 30 years, our Tax 
Code, unfortunately, has only gotten old, outdated, bigger, and more 
complicated. It has become a burden, a burden that we are going to 
lift.
  Now, there are some defenders of the status quo who think that the 
Tax Code is just fine. Well, that is not what the American people sent 
us here to do, to defend the status quo. We are here to do the big 
things.
  Our plan rewrites the Tax Code to put American families first, 
including families who have children with disabilities. For these 
families, who may have saved for their son's or daughter's college 
tuition, which is no longer needed, our plan carries on the legacy of 
the ABLE Act by allowing them to roll over from a 529 account to a 529A 
account, an ABLE account, to pay for things like medical bills or 
workforce development instead.
  With this bill, we are making it easier for everyone to reach their 
full potential. We are lifting the tax burden for everyday, hardworking 
Americans. An extra $1,182 for middle-income families in places likes 
eastern Washington could make all the difference between living 
paycheck to paycheck and saving for retirement or making that car 
payment.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me on the right side of history by voting in favor 
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts. Let's help our hardworking men and women 
all across this country.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The Washington 
Post op-ed, ``The Republican tax plan's five worst dangers,'' by 
Secretary Rubin, dated November 15, 2017

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

              The Republican Tax Plan's Five Worst Dangers

                           (By Robert Rubin)

       The deficit-funded tax cuts advancing through Congress are 
     a fiscal tragedy for which our country will pay a huge price 
     over time. While the details of the tax plan remain in flux, 
     its fundamental contours will not change. Nor will its $1.5 
     trillion of deficit funding, the amount stipulated in the 
     recently passed budget resolution.
       Perhaps it's hopeless to expect those in Congress who have 
     long bemoaned deficits and the debt to oppose the plan. If, 
     however, as a matter of conscience or renewed reflection they 
     decide to take heed, here are the fiscal dangers posed by the 
     plan.
       To start, the tax cuts will not increase growth and, given 
     their fiscal effects, would likely have a significant and 
     increasingly negative impact. The nonpartisan Tax Policy 
     Center's latest report estimated that, over 10 years, the 
     average increase in our growth rate would be roughly zero, 
     counting the crowding out of private investment by increasing 
     deficits but not counting other adverse effects of worsening 
     our fiscal outlook. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, using the 
     same approach, estimates virtually no increase in long-term 
     growth. Goldman Sachs projects an increase of 0.1 percent to 
     0.2 percent in the first couple of years and an average 
     increase over 10 years of just 0.05 percent per year, not 
     counting any of the adverse fiscal effects.
       These estimates reflect three underlying views held by 
     mainstream economists. First, individual tax cuts will not 
     materially induce people to work more. Second, corporate tax 
     cuts will likely have limited effect on investment or 
     decisions about where to locate

[[Page H9405]]

     business activity, given the many other variables at play. 
     Third, deficit-funded tax cuts will have little short-term 
     effect on growth, except perhaps for some temporary 
     overheating, because we are at roughly full employment.
       With no additional revenue from increased growth to offset 
     the tax cuts' cost, the publicly held debt of the federal 
     government would increase by $1.5 trillion. An additional 
     danger is that the actual deficit impact would be increased 
     by abandoning the Congressional Budget Office's nonpartisan 
     evaluation that has been used for decades by both parties in 
     favor of partisan calculations by those pushing the tax cuts.
       Adding $1.5 trillion or more to the federal debt would make 
     an already bad situation worse. A useful measure of our 
     fiscal position is the ratio of publicly held government debt 
     to economic output or gross domestic product, called the 
     debt/GDP ratio. In 2000, the debt/GDP ratio was 32 percent. 
     The ratio is now 77 percent. Looking forward, the CBO 
     projects the debt/GDP ratio to be 91 percent in 2027 and 150 
     percent in 2047. After $1.5 trillion of deficit-funded tax 
     cuts, those future ratios have been estimated to increase to 
     roughly 97 percent in 2027 and 160 percent in 2047. These 
     estimates likely substantially understate the worsening of 
     our fiscal trajectory. That's because they do not account for 
     the increasingly adverse effect on growth of the difficult-
     to-quantify effects of fiscal deterioration.
       Exacerbating our already unsustainable fiscal trajectory 
     with these tax cuts would threaten growth in five respects. 
     These are highly likely to be substantial and to increase 
     over time.
       First, business confidence would likely be negatively 
     affected by creating uncertainty about future policy and 
     heightening concern about our political system's ability to 
     meet our economic policy challenges.
       Second, our country's resilience to deal with inevitable 
     future economic and geopolitical emergencies, including the 
     effects of climate change, would continue to decline.
       Third, funds available for public investment, national 
     security and defense spending--a professed concern of many 
     tax-cut proponents--would continue to decline as debt rises, 
     because of rising interest costs and the increased risk of 
     borrowing to fund government activities.
       Fourth, Treasury bond interest rates would be highly likely 
     to increase over time because of increased demand for the 
     supply of savings and increased concern about future 
     imbalances. That, in turn, would raise private-sector 
     interest rates, which could also increase due to widening 
     spreads vs. Treasuries, further reflecting increased concern 
     about future conditions. And even a limited increase in the 
     debt/GDP ratio could focus attention on our fiscal 
     trajectory's long-ignored risks and trigger outsize increases 
     in Treasury and private-sector interest rates. The ability to 
     borrow in our own currency, and to print it through the 
     Federal Reserve, may diminish these risks for a while, as 
     might capital inflows from abroad. But these mitigating 
     factors have their limits; at some point, unsound fiscal 
     conditions almost surely would undermine our currency and 
     debt markets.
       Finally, at some unpredictable point, fiscal conditions--
     and these market dynamics--would likely be seen as 
     sufficiently serious to cause severe market and economic 
     destabilization.
       We have an imperative need to address our unsustainable 
     longer-term fiscal trajectory with sound economic policies. 
     Few elected officials want to face this fact, but, at the 
     very least, they should not make matters worse. We can only 
     hope that responsible elected officials will prevent this 
     irresponsible tax plan from being adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 1 is postponed.
  When debate resumes, the time remaining will be 17 minutes for the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and 12\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson)

                          ____________________