[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H12270-H12284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          RESTORING TAX FAIRNESS FOR STATES AND LOCALITIES ACT

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 772, I call up the bill (H.R. 5377) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation on deduction of State and 
local taxes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 772, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5377



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  December 19, 2019, on page H12270, ``*ERR08*'' inadvertently 
appeared at one place.
  
  The online version has been corrected to delete the inadvertent 
text.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Tax Fairness for 
     States and Localities Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION FOR 2019 OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 
                   LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 164(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule for limitation on individual deductions 
     for 2019.--In the case of a taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 2018, and before January 1, 2020, paragraph (6) 
     shall be applied by substituting `($20,000 in the case of a 
     joint return)' for `($5,000 in the case of a married 
     individual filing a separate return)'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2018.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION FOR 2020 AND 2021 OF LIMITATION ON 
                   DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 164(b)(6)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``in the case of 
     a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2020, or after 
     December 31, 2021,'' before ``the aggregate amount of 
     taxes''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 164(b)(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes of subparagraph (B)'' and 
     inserting ``For purposes of this section'',
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2018'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2022'',
       (3) by striking ``December 31, 2017, shall'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2021, shall'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     this section, in the case of State or local taxes with 
     respect to any real or personal property paid during a 
     taxable year beginning in 2020 or 2021, the Secretary shall 
     prescribe rules which treat all or a portion of such taxes as 
     paid in a taxable year or years other than the taxable year 
     in which actually paid as necessary or appropriate to prevent 
     the avoidance of the limitations of this subsection.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxes paid or accrued in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2019.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF 
                   ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) Increase.--Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$250'' and inserting 
     ``$500''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 62(d)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2019'',
       (2) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$500'', and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2018.

     SEC. 5. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES 
                   OF FIRST RESPONDERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Certain expenses of first responders.--The deductions 
     allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses, not in 
     excess of $500, paid or incurred by a first responder--
       ``(i) as tuition or fees for the participation of the first 
     responder in professional development courses related to 
     service as a first responder, or
       ``(ii) for uniforms used by the first responder in service 
     as a first responder.''.
       (b) First Responder Defined.--Section 62(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) First responder.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a)(2)(F), the term `first responder' means, with respect to 
     any taxable year, any individual who is employed as a law 
     enforcement officer, firefighter, paramedic, or emergency 
     medical technician for at least 1000 hours during such 
     taxable year.''.
       (c) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 62(d)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 4, is further 
     amended by striking ``the $500 amount in subsection 
     (a)(2)(D)'' and inserting ``the $500 amount in each of 
     subparagraphs (D) and (F) of subsection (a)(2)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2019.

     SEC. 6. INCREASE OF TOP MARGINAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE 
                   UNDER TEMPORARY RULES.

       (a) In General.--The tables contained in subparagraphs (A), 
     (B), (C), (D), and (E) of section 1(j)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``37%'' and 
     inserting ``39.6%'' and--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``$600,000'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``$479,000'', and
       (B) by striking ``$161,379'' and inserting ``$119,029'',
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``$500,000'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``$452,400'', and
       (B) by striking ``$149,298'' and inserting ``$132,638'',
       (3) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``$500,000'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``$425,800'', and
       (B) by striking ``$150,689.50'' and inserting 
     ``$124,719.50'', and
       (4) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by striking ``$300,000'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``$239,500'', and
       (B) by striking ``$80,689.50'' and inserting 
     ``$59,514.50''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1(j)(4)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking ``37 
     percent'' and inserting ``39.6 percent'',
       (B) in subclause (II), by striking ``37-percent bracket'' 
     and inserting ``39.6-percent bracket'', and
       (C) in the heading, by striking ``37-percent bracket'' and 
     inserting ``39.6-percent bracket''.
       (2) Section 1(j)(4)(C) of such Code is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)(II), by striking ``paragraph 
     (5)(B)(i)(IV)'' and inserting ``paragraph (5)(B)(iv)'', and
       (B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) the amount which would (without regard to this 
     paragraph) be taxed at a rate below 39.6 percent shall not be 
     more than the sum of--

       ``(I) the earned taxable income of such child, plus
       ``(II) the maximum dollar amount for the 35-percent rate 
     bracket for estates and trusts.''.

       (3) The heading of section 1(j)(5) of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows: ``Application of zero percent capital 
     gain rate brackets''.
       (4) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1(j)(5) of such 
     Code are amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Subsection (h)(1)(B)(i) shall be applied 
     by substituting `below the maximum zero rate amount' for 
     `which would (without regard to this paragraph) be taxed at a 
     rate below 25 percent'.

[[Page H12271]]

       ``(B) Maximum zero rate amount defined.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `maximum zero rate amount' means--
       ``(i) in the case of a joint return or surviving spouse, 
     $77,200,
       ``(ii) in the case of an individual who is a head of 
     household (as defined in section 2(b)), $51,700,
       ``(iii) in the case of any other individual (other than an 
     estate or trust), an amount equal to \1/2\ of the amount in 
     effect for the taxable year under clause (i), and
       ``(iv) in the case of an estate or trust, $2,600.''.
       (5) Section 1(j)(5)(C) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``clauses (i) and (ii) of''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2019.
       (d) Section 15 Not to Apply.--Section 15 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply to any change in a rate 
     of tax by reason of any amendment made by this section.

  *ERR08*The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert in the Record extraneous material on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5377, the Restoring 
Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. This bill would temporarily 
repeal the SALT cap in order to restore fairness in our tax code and 
provide Congress time to develop more comprehensive tax reform.
  The current cap on the State and local tax deduction reflects the 
sloppy and cynical nature of the 2017 Republican tax bill. This bill 
was hastily rammed through Congress in just 51 days without a hearing, 
without an opportunity to hear from State and local governments, and 
without an opportunity to hear from teachers or first responders.
  Republicans decided from the beginning, from behind closed doors, to 
include a cap on SALT deductions in order to help finance their tax 
cuts for corporations and the rich.
  In my home State, California, average SALT deductions are $20,448. A 
total of 6.5 million California families, or 35.6 percent of tax 
filers, claimed the deduction in 2017.
  The double taxation of earnings people have already paid in State and 
local taxes inhibit State and local governments' ability to fund even 
the most vital of programs, including emergency services and public 
education.
  H.R. 5377 fixes this problem by restoring the longstanding tax 
precedent that protects State and local governments' ability to raise 
revenue to fund these services. And this fix doesn't add a single dime 
to the deficit.
  Furthermore, this bill provides tax relief to the middle-class public 
servants left behind by the Republican tax bill by doubling the out-of-
pocket deduction for teachers, classroom expenses, and creating a new 
deduction for expenses for first responders. In 2017, 354,990 teachers 
in California claimed the educator expense deduction, and they will all 
get double under this bill.
  The short-sightedness of the SALT cap had further consequences for 
middle-class taxpayers in high-tax States: Capping the SALT deduction 
diminished the incentive for middle-class taxpayers to claim tax 
benefits that encourage homeownership and charitable deductions. By 
limiting the SALT deduction and raising the standard deduction, fewer 
middle-class taxpayers benefit from taking the mortgage interest 
deduction and charitable giving deductions.
  Homeownership is an important way for middle-class families to build 
wealth. Eliminating incentives for charitable giving undermines local 
charities that rely on donations from middle-class members of their 
communities.
  I think my colleagues from both sides of the aisle can agree that 
these are the types of behavior we should be encouraging through our 
tax code. This bill reverses the Republicans' actions to undercut these 
middle-class benefits to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  Finally, this bill isn't about cutting taxes for high earners. This 
bill is about tax fairness, ensuring that taxpayers are not double-
taxed by being required to pay Federal income tax on earnings they pay 
in State and local taxes and appeals to the core tenets of our 
federalist system.
  In the spirit of tax fairness, this bill is responsibly offset by 
restoring the top marginal rate back to 39.6 percent for the highest 
income bracket.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a tax cut for the wealthy and a green 
light for State and local politicians to raise taxes on local families 
even higher.
  The Center for American Progress and the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities are liberal organizations I don't generally agree with, but 
today, I have to say I do.
  The Center for American Progress has made it plain. They said 
repealing the SALT cap shouldn't be a high priority, in fact, that this 
is overwhelmingly a tax cut for the rich.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities agrees. They said 
repealing the SALT cap, what Democrats are proposing to do today, is 
regressive and overwhelmingly benefits high-income households. And they 
go further and say this is little help to the middle class.

                              {time}  1415

  It is a sad day when it is obvious to everyone but Democrats that 
they are championing a huge tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, 
while the middle class in America get zip.
  Today we debate their insistence on hiking taxes on Main Street 
businesses across America to pay for their massive tax windfall for the 
wealthy 1 percent.
  You think your local property taxes are high now? This legislation is 
a starter pistol for a new race among State and local leaders.
  Who of them will be first to raise property taxes, sales taxes, and 
income taxes even higher on working families and local businesses?
  These unpopular local taxes, frankly, are brutal enough.
  This bill truly is a tax cut for the few.
  According to the liberal Tax Policy Center, only 1 percent of 
taxpayers in America paid more taxes last year due to the reasonable 
SALT cap, 1 percent; in California, only 2; in New York, a mere 3.
  The rest of taxpayers in America either received a tax cut or they 
broke even. That is because the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
lowered taxes on income across the board. We doubled the child tax 
deduction and expanded it to far more families. We doubled the standard 
deduction so more working families keep more of what they earn. We 
eliminated the alternative minimum tax for households making less than 
$1 million.
  This was important, because more and more families, including in 
high-tax States, especially in high-tax States, found the AMT canceled 
out their charitable and SALT deductions completely.
  Another myth that has been debunked is that tax reform hurts State 
budgets. It is just the opposite.
  Many States across America enjoyed a windfall in new revenues, an 
average of 6 percent, with stronger economies, more workers, and an 
expanded tax base.
  California Governor Gavin Newsom wrongly predicted capping SALT would 
result in lower revenues for California. In truth, his State brought in 
a whopping $3 billion more in personal income taxes than he predicted. 
It was the same story in all the high-tax States, including New Jersey.
  So the question is, what did these States do with their windfall? Did 
they pocket these extra dollars or did they pass them through to their 
families and local businesses by reducing State and local taxes?
  To their credit, 13 States reduced their SALT tax burden, but not in 
the high-tax States, who need it most.

[[Page H12272]]

  States like New Jersey actually raised their State and local taxes, 
while New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts are debating even higher 
SALT taxes.
  So if governors, legislators, and mayors keep raising local taxes 
with a SALT cap, imagine how high they will raise them without it?
  There is a price to be paid from high State and local taxes. In 
truth, these are terrific States with dynamic economies and really good 
people. But according to MoneyWise.com, the four States Americans are 
fleeing from the most are New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and 
Illinois.
  Millennials, young people, are doing the same, but you can add 
California to that list. These young people love their States, with 
good reason, but they just can't see a future there with high taxes and 
impossibly high costs.
  In the end, though, why should low-tax States be forced, through the 
tax code, to subsidize high-tax States?
  Why should a farmer in Nebraska subsidize a banker in Manhattan?
  Why should a single mom in New Jersey or a janitor in a building who 
doesn't itemize their taxes subsidize the billionaire in the penthouse 
who does?
  LeBron James, an iconic athlete, legendary really, of the Lakers, he 
will receive an estimated $2.4 million tax break next year because of 
the Democrats' bill, but the janitor and the beer vendor in Staples 
Center, they get nothing.
  Gerrit Cole, a former Astros, is going to the Yankees as their new 
ace. He will get an estimated $850,000 next year, but that parking lot 
attendant at Yankee Stadium gets nothing.
  That is what this bill does, because more than half of the SALT 
deduction goes to millionaire and billionaire households.
  Madam Speaker, the SALT cap of $10,000 is higher than the national 
average of SALT deductions, and because of Republican lawmakers in 
high-tax States, who weighed in aggressively during tax reform, it can 
be used for property, sales, or income taxes. And the AMT, which is 
worth up to $10,000 in tax breaks, was eliminated.
  Thanks to pro-growth tax reform, our U.S. economy has roared into 
gear as the most competitive economy on the planet, with the lowest 
unemployment in half a century, paychecks increasing the fastest in 
more than a decade, wage growth outpacing inflation by $1,000 a year 
for average working families, American manufacturing is back, and we 
have a million more job openings than workers.
  America is once again a land of opportunity.
  Placing a cap on the SALT deduction to let middle-class families--not 
the wealthy--keep more of what they earned is a crucial component of 
achieving this economic victory for American workers and their 
families.
  That old, broken, regressive SALT tax break for the wealthy has no 
place in a fair, modern tax code, and the positive growth in America 
since its removal is a clear demonstration of that fact.
  One final thing: We often hear that limiting the SALT deduction is 
double-taxation and unconstitutional. The courts and tax policy experts 
have debunked these myths.
  We hear a lot about moocher States, but the only moochers in this 
debate are the State and local politicians who think it is their money, 
and they are mooching off the backs of hardworking families and small 
businesses in high-tax States.
  I know my Democrat colleagues are sincere in this effort. But with 
this bill, you have officially claimed the mantel ``party of the 
rich.''

  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this bill.
  And, again, I offer this: Republicans are committed to working with 
Democrats to make our tax code even more competitive, to make our 
economy even stronger, and to never stop working to help the little guy 
in the middle class, and giving tax breaks to billionaires, encouraging 
States to raise their taxes even more is not the way to do it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out 
that the irony of my friend's testimony today, my friend from Texas' 
testimony, shouldn't be lost on any of us.
  Remember, it was the Republicans that created this problem with their 
tax bill. They did a tax bill that benefited corporations and the 
wealthiest people in the country, and then to say that somehow they are 
protecting regular folks is really laughable.
  That tax cut cost us, in the debt, $2.3 trillion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Ms. Sherrill).
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), for yielding.
  I rise today to defend the taxpayers of our country, people who 
believe in a strong America with great schools and great 
infrastructure.
  Madam Speaker, I launched ``12 Days of SALT'' last week to urge this 
House to lift the 2017 tax bill's $10,000 cap on the State and local 
tax deduction.
  Today is the 11th day of SALT. I have been on the floor for 11 days 
to talk about this. This is an issue of tax fairness, with people 
investing in their communities, in schools, and in infrastructure only 
to face double-taxation as the Federal Government punishes these 
efforts.
  The 2017 tax bill was an attack on New Jersey taxpayers. New Jersey 
already sends more money to Washington and gets back less than nearly 
every State in the country.
  Our bill will put money back in the pockets of our residents and 
communities, and not just in New Jersey. This bill provides relief for 
13.1 million Americans.
  It also doubles the deduction for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses 
and creates a new deduction for first responders to offset work-related 
costs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support tax relief to support 
our teachers and first responders and pass this bill.
  Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the Republican leader of the Tax 
Policy Subcommittee, 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as 
I may consume.
  I must admit, I am a bit puzzled today as to why we are here for this 
bill. Our work in the House is almost done for the year.
  We have funded the Federal Government and extended expiring programs 
like flood insurance. We are about to pass USMCA with a record vote. 
Our Democratic colleagues can go home and celebrate that they voted to 
make history in impeaching the President.
  But apparently, before we go home for Christmas, we also need to give 
Ebenezer Scrooge a tax cut, even though we know the Senate won't take 
up the bill.
  Before we get into the problems with today's bill, we should review 
the positives of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which this bill seeks to 
undermine.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered tax rates for all Americans and 
increased the child tax credit.
  We doubled the standard deduction from $6,000 for individuals and 
$12,000 for married couples to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for 
couples.
  And to help ensure Federal tax policy doesn't reward States and 
cities for raising their taxes sky high, we instituted a $10,000, very 
thoughtful, cap on State and local tax deductions to ensure Americans 
in low-tax States don't pay an unfair share of Federal taxes.
  Thanks to the combination of lower rates, larger child tax credit, 
and higher standard deduction under TCJA, for example, a single mom 
with two kids doesn't pay a penny in Federal income tax until her 
income exceeds $53,000.
  In other words, we ensure that that mom doesn't owe Federal income 
tax until her income exceeds not just $15 an hour, but $25 per hour.
  For Americans who do pay income tax, the higher standard deduction 
means 29 million more households had their tax returns simplified 
because they could take the standard deduction instead of itemizing.
  How does the majority propose to improve our tax code today? Not by 
simplifying the code or ensuring our tax code is more equitable, but by 
passing a temporary--emphasis on ``temporary''--tax cut, which largely 
benefits people with incomes between--

[[Page H12273]]

please, listen--$200,000 and $1 million per year--perhaps a new 
definition of the middle class--paid for by permanently increasing 
taxes on small businesses.
  Let me say that again. If you make between $0 and $75,000, this bill 
does not give you tax relief, or a tax cut.
  If you make between $75,000 and $200,000, there is a small chance you 
could get a small tax cut.
  If you make between $200,000 per year and $1 million per year, you 
have the best chance of getting a tax cut.
  Madam Speaker, we should continue working together to find ways to 
improve the tax code for all Americans.
  This bill makes the code both more complex and less progressive.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a great public servant and someone 
who has partnered with us on a number of important issues.

  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of this legislation. I want 
to commend my colleague, Congressman Suozzi, for introducing it.
  Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed in my Republican colleagues. 
They are raising a class warfare argument. They sound like the 
progressive left.
  The fact is, one of the reasons why cities like New York and counties 
like Nassau and Suffolk have had to raise their property taxes is 
because for 50 years, we have been subsidizing other States.
  Seventy percent to 80 percent of the money we send to the Federal 
Government comes back to us, the rest goes to other States. So during 
all these years when they have been able to develop using our money, we 
have had to raise local taxes, and now they are turning it into class 
warfare.
  These aren't millionaires. The people in my district who are getting 
screwed by this are not millionaires. They are cops, they are 
firefighters, construction workers, the people who answered the call on 
9/11.
  What they are doing is undermining the middle class.
  What is middle class in other States may be different from mine.
  The reason we are high is because of the fact we have had to 
subsidize all the rest of them for all these years, sort of like when 
politicians come to New York to raise their money and then go back home 
and vote against us.
  I will say that the strongest advocate for this--when this was first 
raised in 1986 in leading to the defeat of the attempt to take away 
SALT--was Donald Trump. He said the States that work the hardest would 
get hurt the most because of this.
  Now, also let me just say--and I will end on this--that we have 
subsidized other States long enough. We are asking for fairness. It is 
wrong for conservatives to be talking about having a tax on a tax.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill to have some equity in the 
tax code.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a 
series of statements in opposition to H.R. 5377 from Americans for Tax 
Reform, Americans for Prosperity, National Taxpayers Union, Heritage 
Action, and Parity for Main Street Employers.

      Key Vote: ATR Urges No Vote on H.R. 5377, a Pledge Violation

   Posted by Alex Hendrie on Wednesday, December 18th, 2019, 3:00 PM 
                               PERMALINK

       The House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 5377, 
     the ``Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act.''
       ATR urges a ``NO'' vote.
       This legislation is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection 
     Pledge, a commitment made by 218 members in the House and 
     Senate to oppose any and all net tax increases.
       If passed into law, it will raise taxes on individuals and 
     small businesses that file through the individual income tax 
     system. This bill trades a temporary rollback of the SALT cap 
     for a permanent rate hike.
       This legislation is a net tax increase of $2.4 billion over 
     the ten-year budget window, according to the Congressional 
     Budget Office.
       H.R. 5377 also rolls back the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed 
     by Republicans and signed into law by President Trump.
       ``The Trump tax cuts reduced taxes across the board. This 
     legislation is step one toward abolishing the entire Trump 
     tax cuts and increasing taxes on the middle class, a key goal 
     of every Democrat presidential candidate,'' said Grover 
     Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.
       The legislation raises the cap on the state and local tax 
     deduction from $10,000 to $20,000 for 2019 and removes the 
     cap entirely for 2020 and 2021.
       The legislation also raises the top rate from 37 to 39.6% 
     and lowers the threshold that this top rate kicks in for all 
     filing statuses.
       Under current law, the 37 percent bracket kicks in for a 
     single filer at $518,400 in income. Under the legislation, 
     the new top rate is increased to 39.6 percent and the 
     threshold is lowered to $441,475 of income.
       Similarly, a family taking the married filing jointly 
     status currently hits the 37 percent bracket at $622,050 in 
     income. Under the legislation, this family will hit the 39.6 
     bracket at $496,000 in income.


          Repealing or rolling back the SALT cap is regressive

       94 percent of the benefits from repealing the SALT cap 
     would go to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year.
       The left leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities 
     has stated that this proposal would be ``regressive and 
     costly.''
       The Center for American Progress has stated that repeal of 
     the SALT cap ``should not be a top priority'' as it would 
     ``overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, not the middle class.''
       Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) recently criticized efforts 
     to repeal the SALT cap noting that it runs counter to 
     Democrat ideals: ``We can say we're for a progressive tax 
     bill and for fighting inequality, or we can support the SALT 
     deduction, but it's really hard to do both of those things.''


       Repealing or rolling back the SALT cap is also unnecessary

       While Democrats claim the SALT cap raised taxes, this is 
     overstated and misleading.
       The TCJA reduced taxes for roughly 90 percent of Americans 
     and for taxpayers at every income level through lower rates, 
     the expanded standard deduction, and the doubling of the 
     child tax credit.
       Furthermore, repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax meant 
     that 4.5 million families were able to claim $10,000 in SALT 
     deductions, as the AMT disallowed this deduction.
       The SALT deduction subsidizes high tax, big government 
     states. This deduction is rarely used by middle class 
     families as they take the standard deduction instead of 
     itemizing. Capping this deduction has meant that the federal 
     government is no longer providing a benefit to upper income 
     earners in blue states.
       ATR urges a NO vote on this regressive legislation that 
     violates the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
                                  ____


 AFP Key Vote Alert: Vote No on H.R. 5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness 
                     for States and Localities Act

                                                 December 16, 2019
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of Americans for Prosperity 
     activists across America, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 5377, 
     the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act.
       This vote may be recorded in our 2019 session legislative 
     scorecard.
       H.R. 5377 would temporarily undo some of the many benefits 
     of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Temporarily increasing the cap 
     on the SALT deduction (from $10,000 to $20,000) would make 
     the tax code less fair and more complex, but also increase 
     bad incentives for state and local governments to raise 
     taxes. The benefits of lifting the SALT cap would go to 
     states with higher tax levels. Meanwhile, states with lower 
     tax levels, like Florida and Texas, will be once again forced 
     to subsidize the federal tax tab for states like New York, 
     California, and New Jersey.
       Moreover, H.R. 5377 would temporarily raise the top tax 
     rate on the highest earners and increase the number of 
     taxpayers paying that rate--one of the very groups that will 
     benefit from lifting the SALT cap. This makes no sense.
       For these reasons, we urge you to vote NO on H.R. 5377.
           Sincerely,

                                                Brent Gardner,

                                 Chief Government Affairs Officer,
     Americans for Prosperity.
                                  ____


           [From the National Taxpayers Union, Dec. 19, 2019]

       National Taxpayers Union urges all Representatives to vote 
     ``NO'' on H.R. 5377, the ``Restoring Tax Fairness for States 
     and Localities Act.'' This legislation would undo some of the 
     many benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), raise 
     taxes on small businesses across the country, and add to the 
     complexity of the federal tax code.
       Enacted in 2017, the TCJA made several important changes to 
     the individual side of the federal tax code. By significantly 
     reducing income tax rates and increasing the standard 
     deduction, the tax code is fairer and simpler than before. 
     TCJA rightly reformed many deductions and credits to reduce 
     the complexity of the tax code, notably by capping the State 
     and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. Prior to tax reform, the tax 
     code allowed taxpayers to deduct an unlimited amount of state 
     and income and property taxes from their federal tax 
     liability. As a result, many low-tax states were forced to 
     subsidize the choices of high tax states.
       This legislation, however, would reverse these positive 
     alterations to the tax code by increasing the top marginal 
     tax rate, lowering the threshold for which this rate kicks

[[Page H12274]]

     in, and scrapping the cap on the SALT deduction. Most 
     concerningly, the effects of uncapping SALT would 
     disproportionately benefit the wealthiest of our society. 
     According to IRS data from tax year 2015, over 84 percent of 
     the benefit of the SALT deduction went towards those with 
     incomes above $100,000. A mere 3.5 percent went to those with 
     income levels below $50,000. While some middle class 
     taxpayers would see benefit from this change, nearly all the 
     benefit would be for those at the very top of the income 
     scale.
       Ensuring all taxpayers keep more of their hard earned 
     dollars was a priority of the TCJA, which is why only one 
     percent of taxpayers paid more in tax under the reformed tax 
     system. However, giving a tax break to the wealthiest among 
     us, paid for by an increase in the tax liability of small 
     businesses, is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. Many 
     states have adopted pro-taxpayer reforms due to TCJA and the 
     SALT cap, so we should not reverse course now.
       Roll call votes on H.R. 5377 will be significantly-weighted 
     in NTU's annual Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be 
     considered the pro-taxpayer position.
                                  ____


           [From Heritage Action for America, Dec. 18, 2019]

           Congress Should Reject Handouts for High-Tax State

       Washington.--Heritage Action released the following 
     statement from Executive Director Tim Chapman:
       The tax bill House Democrats have put on the schedule this 
     week claims to promote fairness in the tax code, but it 
     really promotes the interest of liberal states. It is 
     anything but fair. It will only benefit a minority of 
     Americans at the expense of those who have chosen to live in 
     states with smaller tax burdens. SALT deductions are nothing 
     more than a federal subsidy for high state and local taxes, 
     which in turn makes individuals in lowtax states responsible 
     for subsidizing more expensive governments elsewhere.
       With the backdrop of partisan impeachment, House Democratic 
     leadership is desperate to hand legislative ``wins'' to their 
     members who represent purple districts. House Republicans 
     should not give them any cover on this bill. It is nothing 
     but a subsidy to the most liberal states at the expense of 
     the rest of the country. Americans should be treated equally.
                                  ____

                                                   Parity for Main


                                             Street Employers,

                                                December 10, 2019.
     Hon. Richie Neal,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means, House of 
         Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Neal: The Parity for Main Street Employers 
     coalition has serious concerns with the ``Restoring Tax 
     Fairness for States and Localities Act'' to be considered by 
     the House Ways and Means Committee tomorrow.
       Individually and family owned businesses organized as S 
     corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships are the 
     heart of the American economy. They employ the majority of 
     workers, and they contribute the most to our national income. 
     They also pay the majority of business taxes. A recent study 
     by EY found that pass-through businesses pay 51 percent of 
     all business income taxes.
       The legislation introduced today would raise these taxes by 
     1) increasing the top rate passthrough businesses pay from 
     the current 37 percent to 39.6 percent and 2) lowering the 
     income threshold of the top rate from $622,050 to $496,600 
     (Joint) for the years 2020 through 2025, after which the 37 
     percent rate is scheduled to expire under current law.
       This rate hike would be used to offset relief from the SALT 
     deduction cap, including one year of marriage penalty relief 
     (2020) and two years of full relief from the cap (2021 and 
     2022). While this SALT relief will benefit some pass-through 
     businesses, those savings will be reserved only for 
     businesses residing in certain states, while the tax hike 
     will apply to businesses in all fifty states.
       It would also undo a critical balance achieved in tax 
     reform. The lower individual income tax rates coupled with 
     the 20-percent pass-through deduction was designed to 
     maintain tax parity for passthrough businesses and the new 
     21-percent corporate rate. EY recently reported that tax 
     reform largely succeeded in this balancing act, but only if 
     the deduction and the lower individual tax rates stay in 
     place.
       The Parity for Main Street Employers coalition represents 
     millions of individually and family owned businesses 
     employing tens of millions of private sector workers in every 
     community and every industry, including contractors, 
     engineers, retailers, wholesaler-distributors, manufacturers 
     and more. On behalf of these employers, we ask that you 
     reconsider this legislation.
       Sincerely,
       American Council of Engineering Companies, Associated 
     Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of 
     America, Independent Community Bankers of America, National 
     Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Beer 
     Wholesalers Association, National Electrical Contractors 
     Association, National Federation of Independent Business, 
     National Roofing Contractors Association, S Corporation 
     Association, Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), an expert on tax policy.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong 
opposition to this partisan bill that would give millionaires and 
billionaires a tax cut and do nothing to help the middle class.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act brought prosperity throughout the Nation 
and to people of every demographic and every income level.
  Unemployment is at 50-year lows, all-time lows for African Americans 
and Hispanics. American economic growth remains the envy of the world.
  After years of stagnation under the Obama administration, middle-
class wages are growing at rates not seen in over a decade. Opportunity 
has been restored in this land of opportunity.
  How did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act accomplish all this? Primarily, it 
cut tax rates for businesses to make them more competitive in the 
world, especially small businesses that employ two-thirds of American 
workers.
  H.R. 5377 eliminates the $10,000 cap on the deductibility of State 
and local taxes, referred to as the SALT deduction, and pays for it by 
raising the top rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent. This, however, is 
the rate paid by many of the small business owners that employ all of 
those Americans and restored our prosperity. This would absolutely make 
those businesses less competitive in the world and would dampen 
America's renewed prosperity.
  Madam Speaker, even worse, the $10,000 cap on deductibility of the 
SALT deduction is more than sufficient for over 90 percent of 
Americans. Lifting this $10,000 cap is a plain tax cut for the rich.
  The Democrats' constant complaint about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is 
that it was a tax cut for the rich, which is simply untrue. But today, 
they propose to fix it by giving an even bigger, massive tax cut to the 
rich. That is correct, and let me repeat it. They complain that the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act was a tax cut for the rich, and they want to fix it 
by giving an even bigger tax cut to the rich.
  Fifty-two percent of the benefit of repealing the SALT cap goes to 
income earners making more than $1 million a year, 52 percent. Ninety-
four percent of the benefit goes to income earners in the top 10 
percent of wage earners.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrats should stop trying to convince America 
that they care about the middle class. There is an old proverb: I can't 
hear what you are saying because your actions speak so loudly.
  This legislation would be particularly bad for poor and rural areas 
in States with low taxes, like Florida and Texas, which have no State 
income taxes. The average SALT deduction in my home county is $1,800, 
well below the $10,000 cap.
  We had a hearing where we invited mayors of affluent townships around 
D.C. and in New York State. Their complaint was that, without the SALT 
deduction, they would have difficulty in raising taxes on their 
residents.
  Madam Speaker, the D.C. suburbs have the highest household income in 
the country. The median household income is over $100,000. I represent 
Marion County, South Carolina, one of the poorest in the State. Fifty-
seven percent of its residents are African American. The median 
household income is around $30,000, less than a third of that in the 
Washington suburbs.
  If this SALT cap is lifted, the income taxes that the poor residents 
of Marion County pay, a portion of those will go to subsidize the 
housing and the services of the well-paid bureaucrats in the suburbs of 
D.C.
  Their taxes are already used to pay the salaries of these folks, but 
now you would have the poor rural residents across America, not just 
Marion County, subsidize their taxes, as well.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday, those across the aisle voted to impeach 
President Trump, who has done more to rebuild the middle class than 
anyone since Ronald Reagan. The figures don't lie. Today, they 
introduce a bill that would give a massive tax break to the highest 
wage earners.
  This bill would make our tax code more regressive. It would provide a 
huge tax benefit to the 1 percent. This benefit would increase income 
inequality. The Democrats' actions, Madam

[[Page H12275]]

Speaker, betray their loyalties, and those loyalties are not to the 
American middle class.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to think of American 
workers and vote ``no'' on this legislation that will hurt the middle 
class.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
pointing out that our bill is paid for, unlike the TCJA, and the pay-
for comes from the wealthiest earners.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Larson), a great member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly support 
this bill. I thank the gentleman for his efforts, and especially Bill 
Pascrell, who has been our passionate leader on the Ways and Means 
Committee, for his efforts on this very important issue.
  What a spirit of Christmas is upon us today. It is great to see the 
bipartisanship is continuing. I was so happy to see Peter King down in 
the well, talking about what this means.
  I dare say, to my other colleagues, I would love to have Mr. Rice 
come and visit Augie & Ray's in East Hartford and have him talk about 
how billionaires are being benefited.
  In Connecticut, we used to deduct, on average, $19,000 in personal 
property taxes. Now, we get to deduct $10,000. Why? So that we could 
pay 1 percent of the Nation 83 percent of your tax cut, which is unpaid 
for, paid for by working people.
  In our State, we send more money to the Federal Government than we 
get in return.
  The basic unfairness, established by Lincoln back during the Civil 
War, is that this is double taxation and especially hurts the blue-
collar workforce all across this great country, especially in those 
States that go out of their way to pay their own.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. I remind Members to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I might add that Nebraska, the 
State that I represent, actually is considered to be a donor State, as 
well, and there is great support for the SALT cap in Nebraska.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, to my friends here, I wasn't going to 
come up here and try to do firebrand or the theater, but we do have a 
little moment of intellectual inconsistency. Let's try a quick thought 
experiment.
  We, as a body, my brothers and sisters on the left, you support a 
progressive tax system, right?
  Well, Madam Speaker, if you support a progressive tax system, then 
the fact of the matter is, if you have a high-income earning State 
community, you pay more taxes. It is just a little line of intellectual 
consistency.
  So, you support the wealthier paying more. What happens when you have 
a deduction that you want to put back?
  I am sorry, but you know me and charts; it is a problem. I am working 
on a 12-step group to deal with it.
  The fact of the matter is, the top 5 percent of income earners get 77 
percent of the benefit. You can't intellectually have it both ways. I 
mean, aren't your brains just exploding, saying: Well, on the one hand, 
we want you to give rich people these deductions, but on the other 
hand, we want to tax rich people more, except for this bill where we 
want to give the really, really rich people the benefit.
  You are going to get a chance. We are going to have an MTR. At least, 
this way, you can take it away from the really, really, really, really, 
really rich people who make $100 million or more, saying they don't get 
to take the SALT deduction. We will see what level of super-rich people 
we are defending in this debate.
  I understand, from a political standpoint, you are doing the right 
thing. You are doing the work from your district. But at least we could 
be intellectually honest about the math.
  If you represent a district that has high taxes, whether it be the 
income taxes or property taxes, coming and defending SALT is fine. It 
makes sense. But be honest about what the math means. If you are a 
donor State, it is because you have high incomes. If you want this, it 
is because you are defending your wealthy.
  It is just math, and the math, Madam Speaker, always wins.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's hard work 
on this.
  This is the largest transfer of wealth in American history with the 
tax bill of the Republicans. They kept the tax break for corporations 
and they are hitting middle class families in my district. Four in ten 
average about $15,000 a year.
  But one of the things we haven't talked about is the hit to home 
values.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Allan Sloan in 
Fortune magazine that talks about Trump's trillion dollar hit to 
homeowners.

               Trump's Trillion-Dollar Hit to Homeowners

       By reducing deductions for real estate taxes, Trump's 2017 
     tax plan has harmed millions--and helped give corporations a 
     $680 billion gift.

                            (by Allan Sloan)

       In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has been talking 
     about plans for, as he put it, a ``very substantial tax cut 
     for middle income folks who work so hard.'' But before 
     Congress embarks on a new tax measure, people should consider 
     one of the largely unexamined effects of the last tax bill, 
     which Trump promised would help the middle class: Would you 
     believe it has inflicted a trillion dollars of damage on 
     homeowners--many of them middle class--throughout the 
     country?
       That massive number is the reduction in home values caused 
     by the 2017 tax law that capped federal deductions for state 
     and local real estate and income taxes at $10,000 a year and 
     also eliminated some mortgage interest deductions. The impact 
     varies widely across different areas. Counties with high home 
     prices and high real estate taxes and where homeowners have 
     big mortgages are suffering the biggest hit, as you'd expect, 
     given the larger value of the lost tax deductions. But as 
     we'll see, homeowners all over the country are feeling the 
     effects.
       I'm basing my analysis on numbers from two well-respected 
     people: Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics; 
     and Hugh Lamle, the retired president of M.D. Sass, a Wall 
     Street investment management company.
       Zandi's numbers are broad--macro-math, as it were. Lamle 
     (pronounced LAM-lee) is a master of micro-math. It was Lamle 
     who first got me thinking about home value losses by sending 
     me an economic model that he created to show the damage 
     inflicted on high-end, high-bracket taxpayers in high-tax 
     areas who paid seven digits or more for their homes.
       Lamle starts with the premise that homebuyers have 
     typically figured out how much house they can afford by 
     calculating how much they can spend on a down payment and 
     monthly mortgage payment, adjusting the latter by the amount 
     they'd save via the tax deduction for mortgage interest and 
     real estate taxes. His model figures out how much prices 
     would have to drop for the same monthly payment to cover a 
     given house now that this notional buyer can't take advantage 
     of the real estate tax deduction and might not be able to 
     take full advantage of the mortgage interest deduction.
       After I showed Lamle's model to my ProPublica research 
     partner, Doris Burke, she steered me to Zandi's research, 
     which I realized could be used to calculate national value-
     loss numbers.
       Ready? Here we go. The broad picture first, then the 
     specific. This gets a little complicated, so please bear with 
     me.
       Zandi says that because of the 2017 tax law, U.S. house 
     prices overall are about 4% lower than they'd otherwise be. 
     The next question is how many dollars of lost home value that 
     4% translates into. That isn't so hard to figure out if you 
     get your hands on the right numbers.
       Let me show you.
       The Federal Reserve Board says that as of March 31, U.S. 
     home values totaled about $26.1 trillion. Apply Zandi's 4% 
     number to that, and you end up with a $1.04 trillion setback 
     for the nation's home owners. That's right--a trillion, with 
     a T.
       Please note that Zandi isn't saying that house prices have 
     fallen by an average of 4%. That hasn't happened. What he's 
     saying is that on average, house prices are about 4% lower 
     than they'd otherwise be.
       Given that the Fed statistics show that homeowners' equity 
     was $15.76 trillion as of March 31, Zandi's numbers imply 
     that homeowners' equity is down about 6.6% from where it 
     would otherwise be. (That's the $1.04 trillion value loss 
     divided by the $15.76 trillion of equity.)
       This is a very big deal to families whose biggest financial 
     asset is the equity they have in their homes. And there are 
     untold millions of families in that situation.
       While Zandi and I were having the first of several phone 
     conversations, he sent me a

[[Page H12276]]

     county-by-county list of the estimated home-price damage done 
     to about 3,000 counties throughout the country. I was 
     fascinated--and appalled--to see that the biggest estimated 
     value loss in percentage terms, 11.3%, was in Essex County, 
     New Jersey, the New York City suburb where I live.
       In case you're interested--or just snoopy--the four other 
     counties that make up the five biggest-losers list are: 
     Westchester County, New York, suburban New York City, 11.1%; 
     Union County, New Jersey, which is adjacent to Essex County, 
     11.0%; New York County, the New York City borough of 
     Manhattan, 10.4%; and Lake County, Illinois, suburban 
     Chicago, 9.9%.
       You can find Zandi's county-by-county list in our Data 
     Store. Eyeball the list, and you'll see that counties 
     throughout the country have home values lower than they would 
     otherwise be.
       Here's how it works. Zandi took what financial techies call 
     the ``present value'' of the property tax and mortgage 
     interest deductions that homeowners will lose over seven 
     years (the average duration of a mortgage) because of changes 
     in the tax law and subtracted it from the value of the 
     typical house. That results in a 3% decline in national home 
     values below what they would otherwise be.
       The remaining one percentage point of value shrinkage, 
     Zandi says, comes from the higher interest rates that he says 
     will result from higher federal budget deficits caused by the 
     tax bill. He estimates that rates on 10-year Treasury notes, 
     a key benchmark for mortgage rates, will be 0.2% higher than 
     they would otherwise be, which in turn will make mortgage 
     rates 0.2% higher.
       Even though interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes are at 
     or near record lows as I write this, they would be even lower 
     if the Treasury were borrowing less than it's currently 
     borrowing to cover the higher federal budget deficits caused 
     by Trump's tax bill.
       If Zandi's interest-rate take is correct--it's true by 
     definition, if you believe in the law of supply and demand--
     even homeowners who aren't affected by the inability to 
     deduct all their real estate taxes and mortgage interest 
     costs are affected by the tax bill.
       How so? Because higher interest rates for buyers translate 
     into lower prices for sellers and therefore produce lower 
     values for owners.
       You can argue, as some people do, that real estate taxes 
     should never have been deductible because allowing that 
     deduction is bad economic policy that inflated home prices 
     and favored higher-income people over lower-income people.
       But even if you believe that, there's no question that 
     eliminating the deduction for millions of homeowners 
     inflicted serious financial damage on homeowners who had no 
     warning that a major tax deduction that they were used to 
     getting would be wiped out.
       As a result, homebuyers who had taken the value of the real 
     estate tax deduction into account when buying their homes had 
     their home values and finances whacked without warning. 
     Interest deductions on mortgage borrowings exceeding $750,000 
     were cut back, compared with interest deductions on up to $1 
     million under the old law--but that doesn't affect anywhere 
     near as many people as the cap on real estate tax deductions 
     does.
       (A brief aside: Among the modest winners here are first-
     time buyers who purchased their homes after the tax law took 
     effect and benefited by paying less than they would have paid 
     under the old tax rules.)
       Now, to the micro-math.
       Lamle's model isn't applicable to most people because it 
     works only for taxpayers with a household income of at least 
     $200,000 a year who paid at least $1 million for their homes. 
     But the principle underlying Lamle's model applies to 
     everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one. To 
     wit: You calculate the tax-law-caused loss of value by 
     figuring out how much a house's price needs to fall for 
     buyers' or owners' after-tax costs to be the same now as they 
     were before the tax law changed.
        ``People buying large-ticket items typically focus on 
     after-tax costs of ownership,'' Lamle told me. ``The amount 
     that many buyers can afford is affected by limits on their 
     financial resources. Therefore, as their tax costs increase 
     substantially because of the loss of tax deductions, they 
     have less money available to pay for homes and to take on 
     mortgage debt.''
       At the suggestion of one of my editors, I asked Lamle to 
     use a modified version of his economic model to estimate the 
     tax law's impact on the value of a theoretical house in the 
     New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased 
     for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 
     annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very 
     high by national standards--but middle class by the standards 
     of large parts of suburban Essex County.
       Real estate tax on that theoretical house would run about 
     $28,900 a year, according to statistics from the New Jersey 
     state treasurer's office. That tax used to be fully 
     deductible for federal tax purposes. Now, it's not deductible 
     at all if you assume that the house's owners are taking the 
     standard deduction on their federal returns. Or that even if 
     they're itemizing deductions, they're paying at least $10,000 
     of state income taxes, which means they don't get any benefit 
     from deducting property taxes.
       According to Lamle's calculations, this inability to deduct 
     real estate tax has reduced the home's value by $138,720, 
     assuming a 5% mortgage rate. At a 4% rate, the value loss is 
     $173,400. (For the math and assumptions underlying these 
     numbers, see his methodology below.) So if the family put up 
     $200,000--25% of the purchase price--to buy the house, more 
     than half of that investment has been wiped out.
       Obviously, it's impossible to prove that Zandi and Lamle 
     are right about the impact they say the tax law is having 
     (and will continue to have) on home prices, because there's 
     no way to gauge the accuracy of their numbers. But the logic 
     is compelling.
       The loss in home values is crucial because it turns out 
     that lots more people have bigger financial stakes in their 
     houses than in their stock portfolios, which have thrived as 
     the Trump tax law turbocharged corporate earnings and stock 
     prices.
       In fact, 73.5% of households that own homes, stocks or both 
     had bigger stakes in the home market than in the stock 
     market, according to David Rasnick, an economist at the 
     Center for Economic and Policy Research, who parsed Federal 
     Reserve data at my request.
       Now, let's put things in perspective, set aside home value 
     losses for a minute and talk about the cash that people are 
     getting from Trump's 2017 tax law. It isn't all that much for 
     most families. Households' average federal income tax has 
     fallen by $1,260 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. 
     That average is skewed by big savings realized by people with 
     big incomes; the median family's tax cut is only about half 
     as much as the average cut, by the Tax Policy Center's math.
       This means that--for taxpayers of higher income and more 
     modest income--the income tax savings are likely small beer 
     compared with the hidden loss inflicted on many of them by 
     lower house values.
       Back to the main event. And some final--but important--
     numbers.
       According to the Tax Policy Center, the Treasury will get 
     $620 billion of additional revenue over a 10-year period 
     because people can't deduct their full state and local taxes.
       That, in turn, covers most of the 10-year, $680 billion 
     cost of the income tax break that corporations are getting. 
     So you can make a case that my friends and neighbors and co-
     workers in New York and New Jersey--and many of you all over 
     the country--are paying more federal income tax in order to 
     help corporations pay less federal income tax.
       That, my friends, is the bottom line.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. By denying the full SALT deduction, you are making it 
more expensive to buy homes, you are having a lower resale value, it is 
a loss of net worth, plus there is about a 1 percent hit because of the 
higher interest rates that are going to come because your tax bill of 
$2 trillion is on the collar.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to look at this to see 
how pervasive the hit is, not just to their income tax, but to their 
most precious asset, their home value.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader and a very vocal 
advocate of this bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5377.
  The bill is a carefully crafted and balanced package of tax relief 
created to address the injustice done to our middle-class families by 
the SALT cap.
  Remember, if you are rich, you get double taxed. If you are not so 
rich, you get double taxed.
  That is what we are talking about here. It is the product of months 
of hard work by members of our committee and the working group led by 
Mr. Thompson.
  I thank the gentleman from California for the time he spent on this 
and for not giving up. I am grateful to our many other colleagues from 
other States, blue and red. I also thank our committee chair, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, for his leadership and hard work. I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  I am going to conclude with this, Madam Speaker. They have only 
talked about one side--the other side has done this--about what happens 
to those ``millionaires'' if, in the bill, we pay for it by increasing 
the personal income tax from 37 percent to 39 percent, from where it 
was before.
  Have you subtracted that from what you are going to get back on their 
taxes? No, you haven't, because you have done it in a dishonest way.
  That is why the middle class gets shafted. Not this time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to

[[Page H12277]]

the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a great member of our 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, my congressional 
district is one of the most affected congressional districts in the 
Nation, ranking 38 among districts in highest average SALT deductions. 
Over 105,000 households benefited from SALT in my district in 2017, 
with an average benefit of $19,400. Then the Republican tax law 
increased taxes on millions of Illinoisans and tens of millions of 
Americans.
  The SALT deduction is a bedrock part of the tax code since its 
inception. It has been around since the beginning of time.
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We need to restore it and make sure 
that citizens get the benefit in their communities from their State 
government and then be able to use it as a part of their income tax.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a treasured member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there are many issues with the Republican tax scheme, 
but the $10,000 State and local tax deduction cap is one of the most 
egregious. The SALT deduction has been a fixture of the United States 
tax code since the introduction of the Federal income tax in 1913 to 
acknowledge that State and local taxes are paid for services that the 
Federal Government does not provide.
  When State and local governments lost part of that deduction, they 
were taxed twice, so this is an issue, which has been said many times 
in the committee, of tax fairness.
  While this legislation was a team effort under the direction of   
Mike Thompson, head of the working group, the persistence of Members 
Bill Pascrell and  Tom Suozzi, who made their persistence with clarity 
and insistence on fairness for their constituents, inspired all of us 
to fight to defend that same fairness for ours.
  This is a good bill. I urge its support.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a great member of our Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
5377, which will stop the double taxing of millions of Americans.
  Restoring the ability of Americans to deduct their State and local 
taxes is about fairness. It is about fairness for the households in my 
California district, where the average SALT deduction was nearly 
$21,000, more than double the current $10,000 limit.
  It is about fairness for the married teachers making $60,000 each, 
who now receive only half of the deduction of unmarried couples, 
effectively creating a marriage penalty.
  It is about fairness for our local governments that struggle to 
provide important services such as education, public safety, and 
infrastructure.
  And it is about fairness for our teachers and firefighters who get an 
additional deduction in this bill to help them afford work-related 
expenses.
  The 2017 tax scam was unfair. The top 1 percent and corporations got 
a massive handout, while American families were left holding the bag.
  A vote in support of this bill today begins to restore that fairness, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), a great member of our Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for 
recognizing me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5377, the 
Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. This legislation 
seeks to fix one of the most harmful provisions of the 2017 Republican 
tax law: the $10,000 limit on the State and local tax deduction.
  Raising this unfair, punishing cap is a top priority for the 
constituents I represent. Forcing Americans to pay Federal tax on the 
taxes they have already paid to their State and local government is 
double taxation and it is wrong.
  In my Illinois district, approximately 42 percent of filers use the 
SALT deduction, and the average deduction is significantly higher, 
nearly double the new cap. Even worse, the new $10,000 cap applies 
equally to married and single filers, creating a marriage penalty, 
further punishing joint filers. This is not fair to America's middle 
class.
  It is wrong that the burden of the tax law that overwhelmingly 
benefits the most fortunate Americans--indeed, 83 percent of the 
benefit of the 2017 law went to the top 1 percent--it is unfair that 
the burden should lie in a narrow range of States like Illinois.
  H.R. 5377 would rectify these wrongs. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi), someone who has worked tirelessly 
on this. You couldn't get out of his line of sight. No matter how early 
I went to the gym, the gentleman would be waiting: ``We have got to do 
SALT.''
  Mr. SUOZZI. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Thompson, Chairman Neal, 
and Bill Pascrell for all of their hard work. I thank Peter King, my 
Republican colleague from Long Island who is retiring next year, who is 
standing up for his constituents, as he always has. I thank the 50 
cosponsors of this bill, bipartisan cosponsors, who realize that we 
have to be, as someone mentioned before, intellectually honest.

  We need to be intellectually honest and recognize, number one, that 
100 percent of this bill is paid for by the wealthiest Americans. One 
hundred percent of this bill is paid for by taxpayers who make over 
$440,000 a year. It is inaccurate to suggest that other people are 
subsidizing this other than the wealthy. This is being paid for 100 
percent by the wealthy.
  This is called the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities 
Act. That name is exactly what this is about: restoring fairness.
  It is not fair. It is not fair that people are paying taxes on taxes 
they have already paid. It is not fair to State and local 
municipalities that relied on this tax deduction since the beginning of 
the tax code in 1913 that are now getting a punch in the gut and trying 
to change the rules.
  There is a reason that this has been endorsed by so many different 
groups. It has been endorsed by teachers. It has been endorsed by 
firefighters, by police officers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from 
New York an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Madam Speaker, it has been endorsed by the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors. It has been endorsed by the National League of 
Cities, endorsed by the National Association of Counties.
  It is not fair, Madam Speaker, that my colleagues on the other side 
are boasting that people are leaving places like my State and moving to 
their States.
  What happens? The people who are left behind, low-and moderate-income 
people who can't afford to move away, get left behind holding the bag.
  My State and so many other States that are hurt by this existing GOP 
tax cut are subsidizing the other States in this Nation. My State sends 
$48 billion a year more to the Federal Government than we get back.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please support this.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 14-\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to

[[Page H12278]]

the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a great member of our 
committee.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak in support of the 
Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act, which includes my 
bill, the Support American Teachers Act of 2019, which will 
substantially increase the current educators' deduction expense for 
teachers.
  On average, teachers in Clark County School District, the fifth 
largest district in the country, which I represent, spend about $750 
out of pocket on school supplies for their classrooms. The starting 
year salary for those teachers is $40,000.
  Kaitlyn Cline, a kindergarten teacher at Kay Carl Elementary School, 
also in Las Vegas, spends even more. Every year, Kaitlyn spends about 
$1,000 out of her own pocket to give her class the educational 
experience they deserve.
  As Ms. Cline says:

       As a teacher, I have to work extra hard on the side to help 
     pay my bills and have extra money for work expenses. Any 
     extra financial relief that can be utilized, can make a huge 
     difference.

  Today, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Let's give 
the teachers the support they need and provide them the deduction for 
the expenses that they incur.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I would just add that there 
will be a chance here in a few moments to answer the concerns that the 
prior speaker had, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a treasured member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5377 
and am an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  I am going to put my full statement in the Record, but let me just 
say a few things that are top-line--top-line--for my constituents. 
There are over 200,000 constituents' households affected by this in my 
congressional district.
  Now, someone was talking about math. I think the original tax bill 
was bad math. It charged $2 trillion to the national debt.
  Fair? No. It was an assault on the middle class. Let's be perfectly 
clear about this.
  And what has the middle class done to anyone here? They are the 
backbone of our country. They have four major things to deduct: 
mortgage interest, SALT, charitable deductions, and health 
expenditures.
  So what did the Republicans' tax bill do? It screwed the middle 
class, in plain English.
  So this restores that deductibility, and they deserve to have it.
  This bill is paid for. I think that is good math, and I think it is 
fair.
  I thank Mr. Thompson and the committee for the work that they have 
done on it. Bravo to all of you, and thank you from my constituents.
  Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5377, I rise in 
strong support of the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities 
Act.
  This legislation repeals the harmful cap on the State and Local Tax 
(SALT) Deduction in 2020 and 2021 and fixes the marriage penalty in 
2019 by doubling the SALT cap to $20,000 for married couples.
  This is welcome relief to the nearly 200,000 of my constituents and 
the millions of Americans who are no longer able to deduct the full 
amount of State and Local Taxes they pay each year.
  The 2017 Republican tax bill took a sledgehammer to the SALT 
deduction by capping it at $10,000 annually for both single filers and 
married couples, essentially an assault on the middle class, the 
backbone of our country.
  The SALT deduction is one of the few deductions in the federal tax 
code that middle class families depend on, along with deductions for 
medical expenses, charitable contributions, and mortgage interest.
  Prior to this harmful cap, my constituents claimed an average annual 
SALT deduction of $63,083 in 2017. More than half of all taxpayers in 
my district claimed this credit in 201 7, and half of these taxpayers 
earned between $75,000 and $100,00.
  This legislation also doubles the educator expense deduction for 
teachers and creates a new deduction for first responders for uniforms, 
tuition and professional development.
  These hardworking and dedicated professionals are part of the 
foundation of our local communities and they deserve this much-needed 
tax relief.
  I urge my colleagues to vote YES on H.R. 5377.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, in the interest of accuracy in 
this debate, I would like to reiterate that we doubled the standard 
deduction for all Americans--not just selective groups, but all 
Americans. We doubled that standard deduction, therefore, helping the 
middle class, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5377, to begin 
to repair some of the damage from the GPO's tax scam legislation which 
passed this House 2 years ago.
  I said it at the time, and I say it again: It is one of the worst 
bills I have ever seen, and it blows a hole in the budget.
  So much for fiscal responsibility on the other side of the aisle.
  One of the more egregious provisions in that bill was capping State 
and local tax deductions at $10,000. This deduction has been part of 
our tax code for over 150 years.
  This cap hurts my constituents, who often have property, income, and 
sales taxes exceeding $10,000.
  New Yorkers already pay more to the Federal Government as a donor 
State than we receive back. We receive only 84 cents for every dollar 
we send to Washington. This imbalance is greater than any other State 
and grows because of the SALT cap. Homeowners are already seeing home 
values decline because of the SALT cap.
  Earlier in this year, I introduced H.R. 515, with 20 of my 
colleagues, to repeal this harmful tax provision. I am pleased to see 
my New York colleague Mr. Suozzi's measure containing much of my bill 
here on the floor today.
  In conclusion, let me say we need to reverse some of the harm the 
GPO's tax scam bill has inflicted on so many Americans, especially my 
New York constituents. Support H.R. 5377, and let's be fair once and 
for all.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I want to first commend my colleague 
from New York (Mr. Suozzi) for his passionate advocacy for his 
district. I understand where his heart is, I understand his motives, I 
know they are pure, and it makes it a lot easier to work with people 
who approach public policy that way.
  But as I have mentioned to him in committee, I think this is 
wrongheaded and fundamentally bad public policy. It certainly is not in 
keeping with benefiting the general welfare of the public, restoring 
these SALT deductions. I am sure many of these points being made 
earlier discourage localities and States from keeping their taxes low. 
They also penalize States like Texas who keep their tax rates low, and 
the majority of the benefit of these deductions will go to 
millionaires. That is not an exaggeration. Over 50 percent of the 
benefit will go to people who are millionaires. In fact, 95 percent of 
the benefit will go to folks who make over $200,000. That is real money 
in west Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from 
Texas an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I think one of the biggest problems I 
have with this, ultimately, is we are raising that top rate after we 
cut taxes, restored more freedom to the markets, and unleashed growth 
and job creation, all a tremendous response from the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act, and now we are putting a tax burden on the American people.
  We are raising taxes on small businesses. One-third of the taxes 
being raised here will fall on small businesses, mom-and-pop shops, 
community banks, and family farmers. Main Street will be negatively 
affected in a big way.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

[[Page H12279]]

  

  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
5377.
  I want to start by thanking my colleagues across the aisle for 
passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. My predecessor campaigned on it, and 
I wouldn't be here otherwise, so I thank them all.
  It is important to understand we need to pass this bill to undo the 
damage done by that bill and the hurt it gave to middle-class families, 
teachers, and first responders across the country. From the very first 
tax code in 1913, we have included allowing a deduction for State and 
local taxes for the simple reason that we shouldn't tax people twice.
  It is not just going back to 1913. Our Founders got that point as 
well. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 32 wrote that independent and 
uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of 
their own wants would be a problem.
  What Hamilton understood is that certain services--roads, schools, 
fire departments, and libraries--are better and more efficiently 
provided by local authorities, and when we double taxation, we create a 
fight between Federal and local authorities for finite resources to the 
detriment of those critical local services.
  Repeal the State and local tax deduction in the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5377, 
the bipartisan Restoring Tax Fairness to States and Localities Act, 
legislation that will provide immediate relief to American families.
  Elimination of the State and local tax deduction in the 2017 tax law 
was a bad deal for the State of Minnesota, the people of my district, 
and millions across the country. In fact, the SALT cap is a punishment 
for States that invest in schools, roads, and people, and it is 
punishment to hardworking families in those States who deserve our 
appreciation and gratitude--not a tax increase.
  Matthew and Karen are two educators in my district who bought a home 
for their young family just 3 years ago. Now, with the increased tax 
burden, they face the real prospect of losing their home and having to 
move farther away from their kids' school and community.
  I am fighting hard for this bill, and I am on a mission to make the 
tax code more equitable for the people of my State--one that already 
shares much more of its hard-earned money with Washington than it gets 
back in return--and particularly for people like Matthew and Karen.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
come together to end the SALT cap and repeal such a punitive mistake.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support for the Restoring 
Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act.
  Over the last year, I have heard a resounding message from Orange 
County families, from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. 
We must repeal the harmful SALT limits included in Trump's tax law.
  When that law capped State and local tax deductions, it raised taxes 
on tens of thousands of Orange County families.
  The average SALT deduction in my district is over $22,000, and by 
capping the deduction at only $10,000--less than half that amount--
Orange County families are being double taxed on the money they earned. 
The SALT cap also imposes a marriage penalty, and it is, therefore, 
antifamily.
  Reversing SALT is bipartisan. I heard this in April when I held a tax 
townhall in April. My constituents simply could not understand why 
Republicans and Democrats could not come together to address the SALT 
problem and help middle-class families in California while Halliburton, 
Amazon, and Chevron paid no Federal income tax in 2018.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 20 seconds.
  Ms. PORTER. Our families should not be penalized by double taxation.
  I thank Chairmen Neal and Thompson for their work on this important 
bill, and I urge support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  First off, I do want to thank my colleague from Long Island, Mr. 
Suozzi. Mr. Suozzi and I have engaged in many conversations about this 
important issue, and I am sure that that will continue after today's 
debate.
  I would like to clear up a few things about this legislation before 
us today to cut through some of what has been debated.
  This bill permanently hikes taxes on individuals and small businesses 
to 39.6 percent for those currently in the 37 percent tax bracket--and 
for many in the 35 percent tax bracket as well--in exchange for a very 
temporary change of the SALT deduction only until 2021. So the SALT 
deduction is going to change very temporarily, but permanently we are 
going to be increasing taxes on individuals and small businesses.
  We have to understand that 90 percent of U.S. businesses are 
passthroughs. They don't pay the corporate tax rate. They pay under the 
individual tax rate. Almost 100 percent of all passthrough businesses 
have less than 100 employees. We are increasing taxes permanently on 
all these small businesses in exchange for that short-term change.
  I support multiple active bills that would change the State and local 
tax deduction without raising any taxes on individuals and small 
businesses. It is important to remember that the only SALT deduction 
legislation that will ever provide relief is legislation that can be 
signed into law, and this bill which permanently raises taxes on 
individuals and small businesses is not it.
  In my district, from Main Street to wineries on the North Fork, this 
is bad news for small businesses up and down Long Island. I am focused 
on providing true tax relief for all hardworking Long Islanders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New 
York an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ZELDIN. It is unfortunate that, at the end of the day, when the 
dust has settled, they will continue to be the victims of out-of-State 
and out-of-touch congressional leadership putting politics over 
commonsense, realistic solutions.
  My colleagues know I am eager to work with them to fix this 
legislation, so we can actually get this across the finish line and 
signed into law to provide true tax relief for hardworking Americans. 
But, unfortunately, that very temporary change to SALT in exchange for 
that permanent tax increase for individuals and small businesses is why 
I can't support this bill in its current form.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the 
gentleman that, although I appreciate that he wants to get rid of the 
cap, you can't do it without paying for it. That is the same 
irresponsible behavior that the Republicans employed in their tax bill, 
and it cost us $2.3 trillion in our national debt.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Gottheimer).
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5377 
to finally deliver the tax cuts so desperately needed for families and 
businesses in my district in northern New Jersey.
  I thank Chairman Neal for his leadership on this legislation which 
will ultimately save the Fifth District tax filers $5.6 billion each 
year. That is just in my district alone.
  Today, I released a tax cut model to show, at every income level, the 
massive tax cuts that families in the Fifth Congressional District of 
New Jersey will see as a result of this bipartisan bill. Not only will 
this bill cut taxes,

[[Page H12280]]

but it also helps increase our property values and drives economic 
growth, which is why the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the New 
Jersey Realtors have both come out in support of the legislation.
  We have to fix the mess caused by the 2017 tax hike bill in the 
moocher States and provide actual tax cuts for New Jersey families, 
first responders, and small businesses.
  Ever since I joined Democrats and Republicans in voting against the 
tax hike bill, I have been fighting to fully reinstate SALT and finally 
cut taxes for north Jersey families. It is time we fought back against 
the moocher States who literally stole $800 billion right out of our 
pockets. I am sick and tired of paying the bill of the moocher States. 
This is a huge win for New Jersey families and an actual tax cut.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague who 
just spoke that the average family of four in his district received a 
benefit through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of about $5,000 per year.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last night we were in the twilight zone, 
and now we are in a parallel universe today. Very interesting what we 
are doing here.
  I come from the high-tax State of California, where we bear the cost 
of so many tax increases from Sacramento. So all we are doing here is 
justifying the increase in the car tax, the increase in the gas tax, 
and spending the money on a dead high-speed rail project, the increase 
from a mysterious gas tax, and the cap-and-trade tax.

  All we are going to do here is reward bad behavior in California and 
five or six other high-tax States.
  Instead, let's get back on track with doing things that cause jobs to 
happen, as the bill that our Democrat colleagues don't like. They 
didn't like Proposition 13, which has saved homes in California. They 
have been complaining about it ever since it was passed.
  Now they are trying to eviscerate Prop 13 and raise taxes on 
businesses. This will justify that ability to do that. Don't send a 
message that they can raise taxes in California or other States any 
more by what happens in this place.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the State of Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
  Ms. WEXTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act.
  The SALT deduction has protected Virginia taxpayers from double 
taxation for over 100 years, but that changed when Donald Trump and 
congressional Republicans imposed an unprecedented $10,000 tax cap 
punishing taxpayers in districts like mine.
  In 2017 my district had the highest average SALT deduction in 
Virginia at almost $18,000 and the greatest number of households 
claiming SALT at 213,500--more than half of my district.
  The SALT cap is unfair and punitive, hurting Virginians and over 11 
million Americans. Hardworking taxpayers deserve better.
  Today we have an opportunity to do better, to restore this tax relief 
and put money back in the pockets of 150,000 households in my district 
and many, many more across the country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to reiterate the 
fact that this bill is just a very temporary change to the SALT 
deduction until 2021 in exchange for a permanent increase to taxes on 
individuals in small businesses.
  While we are having this debate, I think it is also really important 
to point out that the reason our State and local tax deduction was as 
high as it was is because our State and local taxes are as high as they 
are.
  As we take this opportunity on this floor, let's send a message to 
Mayor de Blasio in New York City, and Governors and State legislators 
in Albany, New Jersey, and California, that all levels of government 
have a role to play in tax relief. That is why our State and local tax 
deduction was as high as it was.
  To deliver for my constituents on the east end of Long Island, for 
people in our entire State, and for Governor Cuomo and the Democrats 
running Albany right now watching this, do your part. My people in my 
district are desperate for relief, and Congress shouldn't try to bail 
you out time and time again.
  We will stand here and fight for you. That is why I support multiple 
bills that will make a change to the State and local tax deduction. But 
ironically, this is a bill that makes it worse through a temporary 
change for the SALT deduction in exchange from a permanent tax 
increase. So now, they are getting screwed both ways.
  I am a little different from some of my colleagues. I had some 
opposition to the bill in 2017, and I am opposed to this bill as well.
  For those Democratic politicians who are in New York City and Albany 
and putting the screws to my constituents because they only know how to 
raise taxes and they don't know how to spend wisely, start doing your 
part because that is why our SALT deduction was as high as it was for 
so long.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, Americans famously complain about taxes. Who can then 
blame residents of the District of Columbia, where 40 percent claim the 
SALT deduction, among the largest number of taxpayers in the country? 
By allowing at least a $10,000 deduction, the 2017 Republican tax law 
concedes that it imposes double taxation.
  The Republican tax law was particularly nefarious because it 
virtually targeted blue states, whose top taxes support values like 
funding for local public education. We cannot, of course, protect 
Americans from taxes, but ever since the passage of the Federal income 
tax law in 1913, we have protected them from being taxed on dollars 
already taxed by State and local governments. The Restoring Tax 
Fairness for States and Localities Act ensures that wisdom.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much 
time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the chair of the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend 
for yielding and for his great leadership.
  Madam Speaker, there was a lot wrong with the 2017 Republican tax 
law. This week, we can fix part of it by repealing the cap on the State 
and local tax deduction, or SALT.
  The SALT deduction allows taxpayers to deduct from their Federal 
taxes the State and local income property taxes they pay. Republicans 
capped the SALT deductions at $10,000, far, far less than many New 
Yorkers pay. It has caused a great deal of pain for many New Yorker 
families.
  There is also a marriage penalty in the law. So if two people who 
each have $10,000 in SALT get married, their combined deduction goes 
from $20,000 to $10,000 when they tie the knot. That doesn't make 
sense.
  The bill before us, H.R. 5377, introduced by my colleague,  Tom 
Suozzi, addresses both of these issues. It lifts the cap for married 
couples to $20,000 in 2019. It eliminates the cap entirely for the 
following 2 years and pays for it by restoring the previous top 
marginal tax rate.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5377.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, if 
there are no other speakers on the other side, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to

[[Page H12281]]

close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Madam Speaker, in the interest of spreading holiday cheer, 
I will be brief.
  I believe the bill we are about to vote on is bad policy. If you look 
at the SALT cap, it is good policy.
  A State that has lower taxes should not be forced to pay more to 
subsidize a State that has higher taxes. There are generally reasons 
that a State is a higher tax State, and that was generated locally or 
at that State level.
  But I think it is bad policy, as Mr. Zeldin was pointing out, to have 
a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary tax benefit. That is 
bad policy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I point out that their provision is temporary as well, 
just not as temporary.
  Madam Speaker, the National Association of Police Organizations in 
their letter to us wrote: ``Our members are not just first responders; 
they are also citizens of the communities in which they work.''
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from that 
organization.


            National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.

                          Alexandria, Virginia, December 10, 2019.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady:
       On behalf of the National Association of Police 
     Organizations (NAPO), representing over 241,000 sworn law 
     enforcement officers across the nation, I am writing to you 
     to express our full support for the Restoring Tax Fairness 
     for States and Localities Act.
       Throughout this country, law enforcement officers go to 
     work every day with one goal in mind: to keep their 
     communities safe. In order to achieve this mission, they 
     receive support from the communities they serve, as public 
     safety budgets across the United States are largely drawn 
     from state and local property, sales, and income taxes--
     essential investments that give our first responders the 
     tools they need to get the job done. The state and local tax 
     (SALT) deduction has helped support these vital investments 
     at the state and local level.
       Our members are not just first responders; they are also 
     citizens of the communities in which they work. The fact is 
     that the capping of the SALT deduction is a significant tax 
     increase for many suburban homeowners, including law 
     enforcement officers. This puts them squarely in the range of 
     middle-class taxpayers that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Public 
     Law No. 115-97) was supposed to help. Instead, with the SALT 
     deduction capped at $10,000, many first responders are 
     finding themselves on the wrong end of a tax hike. We support 
     the two-year repeal of the cap and call on Congress to 
     permanently repeal it, for homeowners, for our communities, 
     and for the first responders who work every day to keep those 
     communities safe.
       Further, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act hit law enforcement 
     officers with another tax increase when it eliminated their 
     ability to deduct work-related out-of-pockets expenses. Like 
     many public servants, law enforcement officers serve our 
     nation and our communities for modest wages and often have to 
     pay for mandatory and necessary equipment and training out-
     of-pocket. These out-of-pocket costs are significant and a 
     financial burden on officers. NAPO supports the inclusion of 
     the Supporting America's First Responders Act, which would 
     reinstate deductions for certain, significant work-related 
     out-of-pocket expenses for first responders.
       NAPO stands ready to support any efforts necessary to pass 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                          William J. Johnson, CAE,
                                               Executive Director.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, the fact is that capping 
the SALT deduction is a significant tax increase for many suburban 
homeowners, including law enforcement officers. This puts them squarely 
in the range of middle-class taxpayers that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
was supposed to help. Instead, with the SALT deduction cap at $10,000, 
many first responders are finding themselves on the wrong end of a tax 
hike.
  We support the 2-year repeal of the cap and call on Congress to 
permanently repeal it for homeowners, for our communities, and for 
first responders who work every day to keep those communities safe.
  Madam Speaker, I want to take a quick moment, as we head into this 
holiday season, to offer my appreciation to the Committee on Ways and 
Means tax staff. The Members who serve on the Committee on Ways and 
Means already know that they have the hardest working men and women on 
the Hill at their disposal. This bill would not have been possible 
without their commitment, policy expertise, dedication, and hard work.
  I want to take a minute to thank my subcommittee staff director, 
Aruna Kalyanam; the lead staffer on the SALT deduction, Peg McGlinch; 
my senior counsel, Terri McField; as well as Scott La Rochelle, Arjun 
Ghosh, Lee Slater, and Andrew Grossman on the committee for their 
tremendous efforts. They do great work, and we should all be really 
glad that they are here. All Americans should be.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation to 
eliminate the cap on the State and Local Tax (or SALT) deduction. Two 
years ago, Republicans capped the SALT deduction to force districts 
represented by Democratic Members to pay for the bulk of their Tax 
Scam. That cap raised over $662 billion in revenue for Republican tax 
priorities, nearly all of it from Democratic states like New York. New 
York State already pays $48 billion more to the Federal government than 
it gets back, and the loss of the SALT deduction was responsible for a 
$2.3 billion revenue hole in New York last year putting critical 
services at risk.
  Some of my colleagues claim that the SALT deduction will just benefit 
the wealthy. Wrong. In 2016, 1.2 million New Yorkers used the SALT 
deduction, and more than half of those taxpayers earned less than 
$100,000 per year. We are not talking about a loophole used by the 
richest Americans--many of which, I will point out, were preserved in 
the Republican Tax Scam. We are talking about the largest deduction for 
the teachers, office workers, and first responders who make up the 
middle class in my district.
  We must remove this cap and stop punishing the hard-working people of 
New York simply because of where they live. I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 772, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rice of South Carolina moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     5377 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2(a), 
     insert ``if the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for 
     such taxable year does not exceed $100,000,000,'' after 
     ``January 1, 2020,''.
       In section 3, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section 164(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by section 2, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Suspension of dollar limitation on state and local 
     taxes for 2020 and 2021.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in 2020 or 2021, subparagraph (B) of paragraph (6) 
     shall not apply.
       ``(B) Exception for certain high-income taxpayers.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any 
     taxable year if the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer 
     for such taxable year exceeds $100,000,000.''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by each of sections 
     4(a), 4(b)(2), 5(a), and 5(c), strike ``$500'' and insert 
     ``$1,000''.

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, my motion to recommit is 
very simple.

[[Page H12282]]

  Despite the terms of the underlying bill, it would retain the $10,000 
cap on the SALT deduction only for tax returns where the people earn 
more than $100 million a year.
  This would produce about $7 billion in savings, and we would apply 
the $7 billion to doubling the deduction for firefighters and teachers' 
supplies from $500, which is provided in the underlying bill, to 
$1,000.
  Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle love to say that they are 
the party of the downtrodden and the middle class, but their actions 
certainly speak a lot louder than their words. The underlying bill here 
is a plain giveaway to the rich. Let me say that again: It is a plain 
giveaway to the rich.
  In excess of 50 percent of the benefit of restoring or taking away 
the SALT cap goes to the top 1 percent of wage earners. Madam Speaker, 
94 percent--94 percent--of the benefit of doing away with the SALT cap 
goes to wage earners that are in the top 10 percent of American wage 
earners.
  Please, Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle should stop saying 
that they are for the middle class.
  I represent an area in South Carolina. I live in Horry County, South 
Carolina. The average SALT deduction is $1,800. The SALT cap of $10,000 
is five times higher than what is needed to cover the average SALT 
deduction in Horry County.
  But I represent poor counties as well. Marion County, South Carolina, 
57 percent African American, has an average wage of $30,000 a year. If 
we do away with this SALT deduction cap, these people would be 
subsidizing, with their Federal income taxes, mansions in high-tax 
States.
  That is simply not fair, and it doesn't just apply in South Carolina. 
It applies to rural areas all over our country, including rural areas 
in California and rural areas in New York.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into effect 2 years ago has restored 
opportunity in this land of opportunity. We have historic lows in 
unemployment. Record numbers of people are working in this country, in 
every demographic category. It cuts taxes for people at every income 
level.
  The opportunity has been restored in this land of opportunity, but my 
friends across the aisle dig at this. Their big opposition to this bill 
is that it was a tax cut for the wealthy. They say 80 percent went to 
the wealthiest 1 percent. That is not true. That only focuses on the 
time after the individual tax cuts expire.
  Their proposal to fix the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, their proposal to 
fix this bill that they say is a tax cut for the wealthy, is to put 
back an even greater tax cut for the wealthy. Again, 94 percent of the 
benefit of this bill goes to people who earn in the top 10 percent of 
wage earners in this country.
  Madam Speaker, there is an old proverb: I can't hear what you are 
saying because your actions scream so loudly.
  Madam Speaker, if we truly are for the middle class, if we truly are 
for the downtrodden, if we want to support our firefighters and our 
teachers, vote for this motion to recommit.
  Keep the SALT deduction in place for the wealthiest of the wealthy, 
only those who are earning $100 million a year or more. Surely, they 
can afford to pay for their property taxes on their mansions without 
subsidies from rural people like the people in Marion, South Carolina.
  If we really believe that we want to back the middle class, let's 
back up our words with actions.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Speaker, let's talk about who actually takes 
the SALT deduction.
  In my district in New Jersey, they are not rich. They are teachers. 
They are firefighters. They are small business owners. They are young 
families who want to buy a home, seniors who want to stay in theirs.
  And then in 2017, House Republicans targeted them because they happen 
to live in States where we choose to pay for good schools and services.
  And why? Not to pay for schools, not to pay for our military, not to 
pay for our healthcare, but because they needed to find someone in 
America to pay for cutting our effective corporate tax rate in half.
  When middle-class families in my district saw their taxes rise, their 
home values fall, just one company, Berkshire Hathaway--one company--
got a $29 billion windfall.
  Did corporations give that money to their employees? No. According to 
CRS, the average American worker got an added bonus of $28.
  Did they invest in new jobs and output? No. The economy actually grew 
more slowly in the six quarters after the bill was passed than in the 
six quarters before it.
  So where did the money go? I will tell you where most of it went. The 
tax cut helped corporations buy back over $1 trillion of their own 
shares on Wall Street, which gave us a temporary sugar high on Wall 
Street. We may as well have burned that money on The National Mall.
  For this--for this--the Republican tax bill took from middle-class 
families money they needed to buy their first home, to send their kids 
to college, to stay in their home when they retire.
  For this, because capping SALT wasn't nearly enough to pay for that 
bill, the bill blew a $2 trillion hole in the national debt--just as 
everyone on our side predicted because we used something called math.
  Madam Speaker, let's restore the SALT deduction. Vote for this bill.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, when Congress enacted the first income tax 
in 1861, in the midst of the Civil War, it included the first exemption 
for State and local taxes.
  President Trump's tax law violated our Nation's long-held views of 
States' rights and a limited Federal Government.
  It has long been accepted in America that we do not tax the same 
income twice. Federal taxation must not crowd out the taxes needed to 
support critical State and local functions like good schools, roads, 
and bridges. That principle was first stated in the Federalist Papers. 
It is a core component of States' rights, and it was attacked by 
Trump's tax law.
  The SALT deduction expresses the longstanding American preference of 
local solutions to local problems.
  President Trump's tax law hurts California communities. By limiting 
the deductibility of State and local taxes, the Trump tax law was a 
direct threat to States and communities that are investing in local 
services. Over the long-term, it will cause local governments to slash 
revenue that funds schools, healthcare, transit, parks, and first 
responders.
  This bill will not only help middle-class families, but it will 
expand tax relief for educators by doubling the tax credit from $250 to 
$500. It will create a new tax credit for first responders, the people 
who put their lives on the line every day to serve us.
  I am heartened that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want 
to work on a progressive income tax. I am heartened that they want to 
tax billionaires and ultramillionaires and champion a progressive tax 
system that addresses income inequality.
  But this vote today is about principle. It is about standing up for 
the principle that States and localities are able to fund the services 
that are most crucial to their communities.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the 
holiday season, I accept the motion to recommit.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 5377 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:

[[Page H12283]]

  Passage of H.R. 5377, if ordered; and
  Passage of H.R. 5430.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388, 
nays 36, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 699]

                               YEAS--388

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Estes
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Keller
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                                NAYS--36

     Aguilar
     Allred
     Barragan
     Bass
     Biggs
     Casten (IL)
     Castro (TX)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Correa
     Espaillat
     Fletcher
     Fudge
     Garcia (TX)
     Gosar
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Lee (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     McEachin
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neguse
     Omar
     Payne
     Pocan
     Richmond
     Stevens
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Underwood
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson Coleman

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hayes
     Hunter
     Meadows
     Nadler
     Serrano
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1559

  Messrs. BIGGS, ALLRED, Mrs. FLETCHER, Messrs. PAYNE and NEGUSE 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BURCHETT, STANTON, SIRES, COHEN, CUELLAR, Ms. ADAMS, Mrs. 
DEMINGS, Mses. SPEIER, MATSUI, MENG, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Ms. CLARKE 
of New York, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Messrs. GARCIA of Illinois, LUJAN, 
HUFFMAN, Ms. SCANLON, Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Messrs. KEATING, 
McNERNEY, Mses. BONAMICI, PRESSLEY, and Mr. DeSAULNIER changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the 
instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, 
H.R. 5377, back to the House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sherrill). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of California:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2(a), 
     insert ``if the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for 
     such taxable year does not exceed $100,000,000,'' after 
     ``January 1, 2020,''.
       In section 3, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section 164(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by section 2, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Suspension of dollar limitation on state and local 
     taxes for 2020 and 2021.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in 2020 or 2021, subparagraph (B) of paragraph (6) 
     shall not apply.
       ``(B) Exception for certain high-income taxpayers.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any 
     taxable year if the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer 
     for such taxable year exceeds $100,000,000.''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by each of sections 
     4(a), 4(b)(2), 5(a), and 5(c), strike ``$500'' and insert 
     ``$1,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 206, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 700]

                               AYES--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi

[[Page H12284]]


     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--206

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Allred
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pappas
     Pence
     Perry
     Pocan
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Butterfield
     Hunter
     Meadows
     Nadler
     Serrano
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1609

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________