With a crucial floor vote next week, House Speaker Mike Johnson is surveying his members about counting the cost of extending President Trump's tax cuts at zero, we have learned.

Why it matters: Trump wants his 2017 tax cuts made permanent. The math gets easier on "one big, beautiful bill" if Johnson embraces the "current policy" approach favored by his House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) — as well as the Senate.

• House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) — who has been skeptical — is hinting to colleagues he might also be supportive of using current policy, with some key caveats, people familiar with the matter tell us.

⏎ That'd be a huge shift: The budget resolution the House will consider on Tuesday is locked into a "current law" framework. That would mean the new costs for the expiring tax cuts would need to be factored in.

• Arrington has also indicated he is open to making Trump's tax cuts permanent, as long as the House approves at least $2 trillion in spending cuts.

Between the lines: Arrington and Smith have butted heads throughout the entire budget process. Few in the conference would call them close allies.

• But if they can be on the same page on using a current policy score, the prospect of passing Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" through the House becomes much easier.

The bottom line: The House and Senate will eventually have to resolve their one bill versus two bills debate. A much harder question is whether to make the tax cuts permanent. (More below).

— Hans Nichols

The House budget resolution uses a "current law" baseline, which means the cost of Trump's tax cuts is around $4.5 trillion over 10 years.

• But under the Senate's preferred approach, Trump's Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TJCA) should be deemed "current policy," the Congressional Budget Office would not have to count the cost of extending them.
• That puts their effective price tag at zero. It also makes it much easier to make them permanent, a key priority for Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and the White House.

Zoom in: There's an open (and important) question hanging over the entire current policy versus current law debate: Will the Senate parliamentarian go along with Crapo's preferred accounting method?

• House lawmakers will want some sort of assurance the Senate parliamentarian will allow it.
• That kind of ruling can only happen if the Senate budget resolution includes a tax provision, which it currently doesn't.

The bottom line: If the Senate is going to test its current policy theory — and get the parliamentarian's approval — it will need to jump to the House's single bill approach.