[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H595-H603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7160, SALT MARRIAGE PENALTY
ELIMINATION ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 987,
DENOUNCING THE HARMFUL, ANTI-AMERICAN ENERGY POLICIES OF THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 994 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 994
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7160) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the
limitation on the amount certain married individuals can
deduct for State and local taxes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 987) denouncing the
harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden
administration, and for other purposes. The resolution shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
House Resolution 994 provides for consideration of two measures, H.R.
7160 and H. Res. 987. The rule provides for H.R. 7160 to be considered
under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means or their respective designees and provides for one
motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 987 under a
closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation. H.R. 7160, the SALT Marriage Penalty
Elimination Act, would bring much-needed relief to hardworking
Americans in high-tax States that make the cost of living unbearable.
This legislation is an important fix to our Nation's tax code that
will raise the cap for joint income filers, married couples, to
$20,000. This legislation makes right a provision in our tax code that
is clearly unfair and penalizes middle-class families in many States
across our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, President Biden's reckless spending of hard-earned
taxpayer dollars means that American families are already saddled with
high inflation. Add to that the exorbitant taxes paid by those who live
in States like I do that are run by Democrats who want to take and
spend even more of their money.
Many of my colleagues have argued that raising the cap for the State
and local tax deductions is just bailing out blue States for their
reckless spending and failed policies. However, New York, as is the
case with many of our higher tax States, pays far more into the Federal
Government than it receives in return, and that money that New York
State pays into the Federal Government is invested in States across
this great Nation for things like infrastructure, law enforcement, and
other essential services.
I can assure my colleagues here today that millions of New Yorkers,
including those living in my own district, are painfully aware and
routinely against the fiscal insanity perpetuated by Governor Kathy
Hochul of New York, just as millions of Californians are deeply opposed
to the reckless tax-and-spend policies of Governor Gavin Newsom and
Democrats in Sacramento. That is why this legislation before us today
is not a bailout for harmful State policies. It is a lifeline to
Americans who are feeling the pain of this out-of-control taxation
firsthand.
Mr. Speaker, it is common to hear from those opposed to the SALT
deduction that this deduction only benefits the very rich. I encourage
them to talk to police officers and firefighters living on Long Island
in Nassau or Suffolk County or middle-class families living in southern
California trying to pay their bills, put food on the table, and
[[Page H596]]
ensure their children have a good life. I think you will find that
these are the Americans who are in most need of and will benefit the
most from this urgent and necessary relief.
Additionally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.
Res. 987, a resolution denouncing the harmful anti-American energy
policies of the Biden administration.
On January 6, 2024, President Joe Biden chose to serve his political
interests and the interests of the radical environmentalists over the
interests and the needs of the American people. His decision to halt
the export of American liquefied natural gas only further undermines
our economy and further jeopardizes the security of our great Nation.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has played a crucial role in fostering
our Nation's economic growth and energy independence. By putting a
sudden stop to its export, President Biden is jeopardizing the
livelihoods of countless Americans who depend on the energy sector for
their jobs.
Let me be clear: This move by President Biden is nothing more than a
stab in the back to the very people who fuel our Nation and who have
been world leaders in energy technology innovation that makes our
country great.
President Biden's action also emboldens our adversaries like Russia
and hangs our allies in Europe, who import 68 percent of U.S. LNG
exports, out to dry. The bottom line is this: If we are to ensure our
secure future of affordable and reliable energy where the United States
and our allies are not dependent on foreign adversaries for our energy
needs, then we need to ensure that this Nation remains a leading
exporter of LNG.
The President's asinine choice to prioritize the shortsighted goals
of radical environmentalists and score political points from the woke
mob is being made at the expense of long-term stability and
compromising our Nation's economic strength. It is our responsibility
here as Members of Congress in this House of Representatives to condemn
this profoundly un-American action that is in clear contravention of
American interests.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to support this
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez) will control the time for the minority.
There was no objection.
{time} 1215
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans called us into an emergency meeting to
consider today's rules several weeks ago.
Several weeks ago, it is an emergency. Actually, America does have
some emergencies that need to be addressed.
Our national security is at risk. Putin, the dictator, may win his
war against our ally if we don't surge aid to Ukraine.
Putin wants World War III, and Putin-protecting Republicans don't
want to address that emergency. Remember, Putin's war caused our energy
crisis to rise.
I call on responsible Republicans to address our national security
emergency. I call on them to address the overwhelmingly bipartisan bill
that passed the Senate.
America has another emergency. In 5 legislative days--count them. It
is a single hand. In 5 legislative days, our Federal Government won't
have money to pay its workers, to pay its contracts, to do our jobs.
Today should be a day to govern, a day to address America's
emergencies. Instead, we are taking up one of the most precious
resources we have in Congress, and that is floor time, for an election
ploy to help certain New York Republicans win their next election.
Last night, New Yorkers told America they were tired of Republicans'
failure to govern, didn't they? Now Republicans are using floor time to
save the fragile reelection campaigns of some other New York
Republicans, but don't let them fool you.
H.R. 7160 is simply a Band-Aid for a problem that the twice-
impeached, four times-indicted former President Trump and Republican
congressional folks caused in the first place.
They created this problem that they now want to put a Band-Aid on.
They capped the SALT deduction in their tax bill to give tax breaks to
the wealthiest corporations and CEOs.
As we know, Republicans and Trump seem to care more about the richest
Americans. There are real emergencies that all Americans want this
Congress to address.
The Federal Government could shut down in just 2 weeks, an absolute
disaster that these bills don't even mention. That should be our
priority.
Yet, we have another week of chaos and dysfunction, of dealing with
things that are not priorities for the American people.
It is another week that Republicans allow small sections of their
party to dictate what we see on the floor, based on their reelection
priorities.
It is another week that extreme MAGA Republicans push partisan
political stunts. The other bill in this rule is another one of those
stunts.
H. Res. 987 is a nonbinding, politically motivated resolution that
does nothing, nada, nothing, to lower energy costs or provide effective
energy solutions.
Like so much of what Republicans do in the House, it is a distraction
from the real bipartisan work Congress must do.
From the first paragraph, it is wrong. Just yesterday, we got a new
Consumer Price Index report which shows energy prices fell last month.
They have fallen 4.6 percent in the last year.
The United States is producing more oil than ever before, more than
any time during the Trump administration.
More importantly, energy is not just oil and gas. The Inflation
Reduction Act that Democrats passed and President Biden signed into law
last Congress created more than 170,000 clean energy jobs in the U.S.
so far.
Wind, solar, geothermal--these are important elements of our American
energy portfolio. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $369 billion in
investments for clean energy and for reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
This resolution that does nothing is just wrong. It is a do-nothing
Congress. It is yet another day in our do-nothing Congress.
Let's not take our word for it. In the first session of the 117th
Congress, 81 bills were enacted into law; in the first session of the
Republican-led 118th Congress, 34 bills. That is all--just 34 bills.
It is one of the most unproductive Congresses in modern history. The
American people deserve more. They want more. They want us to do our
work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Lawler), my good friend and colleague in the New York
delegation.
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, in a time when middle-class families are
increasingly squeezed by the rising cost of living, providing real tax
relief is imperative.
That is why I introduced the SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act,
which is designed to correct an inequity that has burdened married
couples across New York and the United States since 2017.
The current tax code unfairly caps State and local tax deductions,
otherwise known as SALT, at $10,000 for married couples filing jointly,
essentially penalizing them for their marital status and depriving them
of the full $20,000 deduction they would rightly deserve.
This arbitrary threshold does not reflect the economic realities
faced by dual-income households, especially in high-cost areas like New
York's 17th District. It is an issue that transcends tax policy. It is
about fairness and supporting the backbone of our communities--our
families.
The implications of the SALT cap are significant. Since its
implementation, we have witnessed a dramatic decline in taxpayers
claiming the SALT deduction, a drop from nearly 50 percent in my
district to 19, or nationwide, from 31 percent to 9.
This stark decrease has disproportionately impacted high-cost States
like New York where the cost of living far exceeds the national
average.
[[Page H597]]
In my district alone, the percentage of filers itemizing taxes have
halved since the cap's introduction, underscoring the urgent need for
reform.
The SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act, my first bill introduced
in the House, seeks to address this issue head-on by eliminating the
marriage penalty and reinstating a fair deduction limit.
During the Rules Committee hearing, there was some insinuation that
this legislation was hurried and rushed in the dead of night.
I am here to tell you that this legislation has been available for
people to review for over 13 months and is less than 2 pages long.
This isn't some thousand-page omnibus deal. It is something that we
have worked on with Republican leadership and our Democrat colleagues
to address for over a year.
Passage of the SALT Marriage Penalty Implementation Act would
represent a significant step toward alleviating the financial burden
faced by countless families in my district and across the country,
offering relief from the double taxation that has unjustly impacted
them.
Additionally, with housing costs reaching near record highs and
inflation continuing to erode purchasing power, the need for this bill
is all the more necessary.
For instance, in Rockland and Westchester Counties in my district,
the monthly cost of a mortgage surged by $1,000 in the past year alone,
thanks to rate increases brought about by the trillions in new spending
from this administration and the prior Congress.
These spikes in housing costs, coupled with rising grocery prices,
are unsustainable for the average family, making tax relief essential.
This House Republican majority was built by the contributions of New
Yorkers, and this legislation would help those same New Yorkers see
immediate tax relief.
Some critics might balk at the cost of this measure. The fact is that
relief provided to families across the country would spur additional
economic growth that would outpace the minor cost.
This bill is a compromise that fixes an unfair penalty and stands to
revitalize communities, stimulate economic activity, and most
importantly, support the hardworking families who are the lifeblood of
our Nation. It provides immediate tax relief.
SALT is expected to expire in 2025, but these families can't wait
that long. I urge all of my colleagues to support this profamily
measure that corrects this unfair penalty, and I encourage my
Democratic colleagues to support it, as well.
They talk a good game, but when they had complete control in the
prior Congress, they failed to provide a fix.
They failed to enact legislation that would provide immediate tax
relief. Governor Hochul, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, and
Leader Jeffries have been silent.
They should embrace this. They should be championing it. They should
be supporting our efforts. This is about providing real, tangible
support to those who need it.
As we move forward, I am hopeful that this can be a moment of unity
amongst my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, reflecting the
bipartisan understanding that when it comes to supporting our families,
fairness is critical.
Together, we can ensure that unfair tax policies that penalize
families are a thing of the past, putting the well-being of American
families above all.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, let's go back to who caused this
problem in the first place. It was those Republicans with their
Republican tax cut.
The Trump tax cut is the one that caused this problem. Let's not
forget why we are facing this. Let's not forget, and, hopefully, New
Yorkers won't forget as to why they are facing this problem in the
first place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Crow), my esteemed colleague.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore House Republicans to
bring the bipartisan national security supplemental to the floor for a
vote. All we want is a vote.
I just returned from Ukraine with a bipartisan group where we met
with Ukrainians, and I can tell you that these folks are fighting and
dying, not just for their own freedom and their own democracy but for
freedom and democracy around the globe because Vladimir Putin and
Russia will not stop at Ukraine. They will continue marching if they
are not stopped here.
This national security supplemental bill, this is not charity. We are
not doing this simply out of the goodness of our hearts. This is in the
best interests of Americans and American national security.
Let's break this down. By providing this support, we will be able to
stop Russian from its march anyplace else in Europe.
We will be able to protect the 100,000 servicemen and -women,
Americans and their families who live in Europe and work with our
allies and who would be at great risk if Putin is not stopped here.
We also protect our largest trading partner in Europe and our largest
security partner. Our economy and our businesses rely on a stable and
prosperous Europe.
We would also be protecting the world's food supply and food prices,
keeping food prices lower and making sure that food supplies are not
interrupted. That is all the things that this bill will do.
Let's also talk about how this bill is structured and how it provides
that support. It provides that support by spending over half of the
money right here in the United States in U.S. businesses and on U.S.
workers, from places like Texas and North Carolina and Pennsylvania and
Colorado, all throughout this Nation who will be building the equipment
and supplies that we will be sending to our military, because that is
another part of this.
Our military sends our old equipment to Ukraine, and Ukraine uses it
with great effect on the battlefield, then the new stuff is kept by our
military.
Let's break this down. We are supporting our economy. We are
protecting our 100,000 troops. We are ensuring a stable and prosperous
Europe. We are defeating the Russian military. We are ensuring food
supplies. We are updating our own military stocks. We are infusing
money in the U.S. defense industrial base and into our own workers and
businesses. We are doing all of this for less than 5 percent of our
annual defense budget.
That is a great deal for the American taxpayer. It is a great deal
for the American people. We would be remiss if we didn't act now and
take this up.
There are moments in history that will judge people and determine the
course of the world. We are at one of those moments now.
I implore you. Bring this for a vote so we can ensure a stable and
prosperous world and make sure it is one that our children and
grandchildren want to grow up in.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Kean), my friend and colleague.
Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New
York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for H.R. 7160,
the SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act.
This crucial piece of legislation is aimed at providing much-needed
tax relief to hardworking families across my home State of New Jersey
and to many families across the United States.
This bill begins to address the issue of double taxation that New
Jerseyans and countless families far and wide have been hindered by for
nearly 7 years--7 years too long, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1230
We are trying to bring relief back home for the marriage penalty
elimination. This will make an adjustment to the State and local tax
deduction, specifically raising the cap from $10,000 to $20,000 for
joint returns with adjusted gross income below $500,000.
With this bill, we are acknowledging the economic challenges faced by
our neighbors, ensuring that the tax burden is alleviated for those who
need it the most.
New Jersey families need tax relief right now, and this specific
approach to doubling the joint returns cap is a critical and necessary
step to taking the tax burden off the backs of our neighbors.
The economic destruction of the SALT cap spares nobody. It deters
[[Page H598]]
young families from purchasing their first home, and it denies seniors
the ability to stay close to their roots and near family.
As a result, every industry across our great country suffers, and
when that happens, no matter what your ZIP Code or your income, every
individual is hurt in some measure.
Let me be clear, this legislation is the floor, not the ceiling, for
the SALT relief that we can and must fight to deliver for New Jersey
families.
To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we all represent
different communities and districts. Let me remind each and every one
of us that we all share the honor of representing hardworking Americans
who play by the rules and simply want to be treated fairly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Posey). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. KEAN. Mr. Speaker, today, we must have the opportunity to come
together with a united voice in this House for fairness. We can deliver
immediate relief for those who need it. It would be a monumental win
for millions of families across our country.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I remind everybody here that
Democrats offered an amendment in the Rules Committee so that we could
have fixed the SALT problem not just for tax year 2023, which is when
you pay your taxes now in 2024, but fixed it for 2 years. If
Republicans were really interested in solving this problem, they would
have made sure that it got fixed for the 2 years.
Do you know what the Republican vote was? Unanimous. Every single one
of my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee said, no, we don't
want a fix that would actually fix it for 2 years. We just want to get
past this next election. We want to make sure that when people file
their taxes now, as April 15 is coming up, that this is fixed. One
year--they could have had it for 2. Every single one of them, even our
New York colleague, voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone how we got here.
State and local taxes were always deductible--State and local taxes--
since the Civil War, before we even had a tax code, until the House
Republicans and Mr. Trump stole the deduction in the 2017 Republican
tax scam.
Do you remember that? It wasn't advertised as a tax increase. It was,
furthermore, buried. Mr. Speaker, over $600 billion was buried. Where
did that money go? You know where it went.
Despite pervasive half-truths and outright lies, SALT has always been
about the middle class. The $10,000 cap Republicans imposed has been a
heavy burden for middle-class families across this Nation, and our
public services relied on SALT absolutely.
All told, firefighters, police officers, first responders, teachers,
mayors, county officials, and Governors have begged us to fix this.
Democrats passed a full repeal through this Chamber. We passed SALT
relief numerous times. Over and over, we have been blocked. We have
never given up, and we won't.
Multiple times this term, Ways and Means Republicans voted down an
amendment which I put forth to raise the deduction and fix the marriage
penalty. This is double taxation. I thought this was what we were
trying to get rid of. Instead, they had a tax cut in 2017 where they
hid getting rid of the deduction. Now, it is a $10,000 minimum.
My amendment is the same as legislation put forth by Mr. LaLota of
New York, a Republican. When we tried a few weeks ago, every committee
Republican voted ``no.''
This badly flawed measure is a far cry from middle-class tax relief,
and it is really the bare minimum we could do.
This certainly is no way to enact tax policy. This is no way to treat
tens of millions of Americans and communities.
What we have before us is a fig leaf to paper over that Republicans
opposed middle-class tax relief. I believe, in the election of 2018,
this was one of the issues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, that fact should surprise no one, since it
was Republicans that stole away that middle-class tax help in the first
place.
This is a very critical issue, Mr. Speaker. I hope we address it
sooner rather than later.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Kim).
Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 7160, the SALT Marriage Penalty
Elimination Act, to allow families to keep more of their hard-earned
money in their pockets.
I thank my colleague, Representative Lawler, for his leadership to
introduce this bill and push for its consideration.
H.R. 7160 would eliminate the so-called marriage penalty on the State
and local tax deduction for families who file their taxes jointly.
Under the current tax code, married couples filing jointly are
penalized and have the same SALT cap of $10,000 as single filers.
H.R. 7160 doubles the SALT deduction cap for married couples to
$20,000 and does right by them.
Limited housing supply, high mortgage rates not seen in decades, and
high housing costs are making it impossible for many first-time
homebuyers to purchase a home and reach the American Dream.
The SALT cap is not and should not be a blue versus red issue. We are
simply advocating for our constituents who want us to consider
progrowth, profamily values and policies.
In my district, the median price of a home is over $1 million.
However, we can pass this rule today to allow us to provide much-needed
tax relief and stop discriminating against families through the tax
code.
H.R. 7160 will not mark the end of our fight to provide full SALT tax
relief for our constituents. This is only the first step to get us
there. I will always fight to make life more affordable for my
constituents.
I also encourage my colleagues to consider the underlying resolution
to condemn the Biden administration's disastrous energy policies and
promote affordable sources of energy. I urge my colleagues to support
the rule and the underlying bill and resolution. I urge my colleagues
to support all of these measures.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pascrell made a really important point, and that is
that this problem arose and impacted middle-class Americans. That
happened because Republicans and the Trump tax cuts didn't really much
care about middle-class Americans. They didn't much care about working-
class Americans.
In fact, as we know, the Trump tax cuts mostly benefited the wealthy.
The Trump tax cuts highlight the priorities that we see in this Chamber
between Republicans and Democrats because they imposed the SALT
deduction cap for a reason.
They wanted to make sure that they could pass these tax cuts that, as
you can see, benefited the richest Americans so much more than they did
middle-class Americans. The magnitude is astounding.
Their goal of what they tried to do and what they did do back then
worked. The top 0.1 percent had an average tax cut of $193,000. What
kind of cut did middle-income Americans receive? A paltry $930. If you
earned $3 million or more a year, you got to keep an extra $193,000.
People who earned $1 billion got to keep even more.
Do those millionaires and billionaires really need that help? Do you
know who really needed that help? The middle class, which got $930,
that is barely $77 a month.
These were their priorities. These remain their priorities, except
for the fact that there are some election problems happening over there
in New York, and they acknowledged it. A few of the New York
Republicans helped them get their majority, so this is
[[Page H599]]
what they are getting back for 1 year and 1 year only because they
didn't want to vote for a 2-year fix.
Imagine what a middle-class family would have been able to do if they
had gotten thousands of dollars of tax cuts. They would have been able
to do some of the things we are talking about: buy a house, send their
kids to college, go on a vacation, make sure that they didn't have to
worry about the bills. Mr. Speaker, they could have bought 20 years'
worth of groceries if we just allowed them to get what the rich got.
But that didn't happen.
Democrat priorities are that we are always standing with the working
class and not the wealthiest corporations and CEOs. We want to lower
costs and grow the middle class.
H.R. 7160, you know, it is not solving the problem. It is not a
permanent fix. It is not even a 2-year fix. When you guys get up and
complain that this should not be a problem for us, we wanted to fix it
for 2 years. You said no.
They just don't want to let us vote on things that are important.
They don't want to let us vote on a 2-year fix. They don't want to let
us vote on Ukraine funding, on emergency security issues that are about
protecting our troops.
Let us vote on these issues. Let the House Members have a say.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carey). Members are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. D'Esposito), my good friend and colleague.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, we have been in this Chamber for a few
minutes now, and we have been reminded at least three times with fancy
posters and words from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
about how we got here. Clearly, we know how we got here, and that is
why we are trying to fix it.
We have also heard that, well, we don't want to support this because
it is only 1 year, and we have heard offers of 2 years. We just got
past the Super Bowl, and I am pretty confident that for every play in
football, you don't get to throw a Hail Mary and score a touchdown or
run a 90-yard run back into the end zone. Sometimes you need to make
your way down the field in order to score that touchdown. That is
exactly what we are trying to do here.
{time} 1245
My constituents in New York's Fourth Congressional District sent me
here to Congress to provide meaningful tax relief to local families,
and the SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act will do exactly that.
This important bill would double the State and local tax deduction for
married couples from $10,000 to $20,000 for the 2023 tax year. This
would allow middle-class families to receive tax relief when they file
this year.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act wrongly penalized married taxpayers as the
$10,000 cap was implemented for single taxpayers as well as married
couples who filed jointly. Married couples were further penalized with
the establishment of a $5,000 SALT cap if these taxpayers filed
separately.
The SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act fixes an anti-family policy
and will help middle-class families across New York and the country.
Since my first day here in the House of Representatives, I advocated
for lifting the SALT cap, including as current vice chair of the House
SALT Caucus. This bill is an important first step to deliver needed tax
relief for constituents and increasing or ultimately removing the SALT
cap.
We have heard countless stories of Americans who are suffering from
sky-high inflation due to the Biden administration's rising gas and
grocery prices and out-of-control spending. We must advance these
policies.
Just the other day, Leader Jeffries sent out a tweet that New York
Republicans were sent here to provide SALT relief, and they have failed
because it wasn't in the tax package. Mr. Speaker, it will be on the
floor just today. We look forward to Leader Jeffries and others
supporting this for New Yorkers and this country.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have seen the Republicans kill a lot of their own rules. A record
number of Republican rules have been killed on the floor of the House.
I think it is a little too early to crow about getting this done when
you don't know if you are going to get your Republican colleagues to
vote for your own rule.
There is something else that is in this rule, and that is H. Res.
987. My colleagues like complaining a lot. They have a politics of
grievance, but they don't actually solve the problem. They go on and on
about various issues, like energy, immigration, other things, but they
do not solve the problems. They don't actually pass laws. They don't
take up the bills that actually would solve the problem.
That is what we are seeing today in H. Res. 987. It is just a bill of
complaint. It is also not very accurate. They are complaining about
President Biden's energy policies. Let's look at those energy policies.
The United States is producing a record 13.2 million barrels of crude
oil per day, more than Russia or Saudi Arabia, more than any time
during the Trump administration. We are also producing record amounts
of natural gas.
H.R. 987 itself even notes that the U.S. became a global leader in
LNG exports for the first time in 2023, which was under President
Biden.
Moreover, oil and gas companies are reaping the benefits. In the last
2 years, we have seen record profits, $196 billion one year and $123
billion the next.
What we see a lot in this other resolution is complaining but not a
good recitation of facts on the ground. The resolution also complains
that there isn't enough domestic production of reliable and affordable
energy.
Let's talk about affordable energy. When Democrats were in control
last Congress, we and President Biden took historic action to spur
clean energy development right here at home.
We know that clean energy helps stabilize prices because we are not
subject to international price fluctuations. As we talked about
earlier, as Representative Crow mentioned, one of the reasons we saw
the surge in gas prices was because of Putin's war, yet we are not
taking up the bipartisan security package that passed overwhelmingly in
the Senate. If we want to look at ways of making sure that our
international markets don't go crazy, let's address Putin's war.
They don't want to do that.
What we are doing at home is looking at that renewable energy because
when we produce renewable energy here at home, we are not dependent on
Saudi Arabia, and we are not dependent on Russia.
President Biden knows the importance of energy independence, and we
are creating independence by weaning ourselves off of those
international markets.
Let me tell you, we are doing that in New Mexico, because when we
build in New Mexico, we bring down costs.
What are we doing in New Mexico? Last year, the Inflation Reduction
Act created more than 170,000 clean energy jobs and provided $369
billion in investments. Some of that went to New Mexico. I am going to
give you a couple of examples from my own beautiful State.
It spurred $1.4 billion in funding for clean energy projects to
create at least 2,105 jobs.
In New Mexico, these clean energy jobs are also bringing to our State
manufacturing jobs, like in Belen where we will be building wind
towers. For the first time, we are creating manufacturing jobs in the
United States.
Wind power and solar power are actually the cheapest electricity we
can invest in. Our big companies know that, and they are investing in
wind and solar.
Indeed, I recently met with Chevron representatives, and they told me
excitedly about the plans they have to invest in clean energy, to
invest in wind and solar.
Rather than pass a resolution that doesn't do anything but complain,
I invite my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to pass bills
that bring down our energy costs while we invest in America's clean
energy future here at home.
Help us build on progress we made last Congress so that we can grow
the
[[Page H600]]
middle class and lower costs for the American people. We can achieve
both goals when you put people over politics.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaLota).
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Speaker, let's add some honesty to the SALT
conversation. I am from a blue State, and I am willing to concede to my
red State colleagues especially that an increase in the SALT cap
benefits blue States more than red States. There; I said it.
After all, it is the blue States with the highest State income taxes,
sales taxes, and property taxes. At 10.9 percent, my State, New York,
has the dubious distinction of having the highest taxes in this great
Nation of ours.
As bloated and out of control as my State's spending and taxes are
under one-party Democrat rule, it cannot be said truthfully that red
States are subsidizing the blue States. The data demonstrates the
opposite actually, that blue States like mine are giving far more to
Washington than we get back. The opposite is true, that many red States
get far more from Washington than they give.
As you can see from this chart, the home States of many of my
Republican colleagues shown in red, who say SALT is a subsidy to blue
States, are, in fact, the States that get much more from Washington
than they give, Mr. Speaker.
Here in this chart, you can see that New York gets one of the worst
returns on investment of our Federal dollars. It is the blue line down
there. Yet, many red States are at the top of this list whose taxpayers
are getting much more from Washington than they are giving.
Mr. Speaker, States like New York are not asking for a bailout. We
are simply asking to break even. Many of my colleagues are correct to
say a large part of the problem starts in Albany. Sadly, I live in that
reality, and I know better than to rely on Albany Democrats to try and
improve the lives of the average New Yorker. Why do you think so many
are fleeing my State for States like Texas and Florida? It is not just
for the weather, Mr. Speaker.
Second, I want to address some serious intellectual dishonesty and
rewriting of history by my Democrat colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats had complete control of Washington for 2
years, the House, the Senate, and the White House, yet they have never
signed any SALT relief into law, even though they passed several
massive omnibus and reconciliation bills. They failed their
constituents and mine and embarrassed themselves and are now trying to
blame blue State Republicans, even though we are clearly fighting tooth
and nail to deliver some sort of relief.
When they had majorities and the White House, why didn't Speaker
Pelosi and New York's own Leader Schumer take action to deal with this
issue?
Mr. Speaker, this is a political talking point for Democrats but a
serious policy item for me and my fellow New York Republicans.
Restoring the SALT deduction is not just a matter of tax policy for
Long Island families. It is a crucial step toward ensuring economic
fairness, supporting the middle class, and sustaining vibrant
communities. The lack of a meaningful SALT deduction hurts my
constituents, and we must address this injustice.
Since so many of my Democrat colleagues have been so passionate about
this issue, I am sure they will have no issue, Mr. Speaker, voting to
advance this legislation and voting in favor of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to
support the combined rule.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Give me a break, really. Republicans caused this problem. When
Republicans were in complete control, they created the problem that
that chart just highlighted. Everybody is paying for that. They created
a problem where the middle class--I don't use that kind of language,
but you know what I would have said--where the middle class really did
not benefit, because they were prioritizing the rich. Now they are
scolding us? You have to be kidding.
In 2019, when Democrats took control of the House, what did they do?
They passed a fix to the SALT problem. It went over to the Senate, and
Mitch McConnell killed it. The Senate, remember, was 50/50, so we
needed 10 Republican votes to get things across. We needed 9 Republican
votes. We needed Republican votes to get things over. Republicans were
not willing to fix things over there.
Our priorities have always been the middle class. Their priorities
were the rich, and that is why we have this problem in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 2023
Center for American Progress report titled: ``Biden Tax Proposals Would
Correct Inequities Created by Trump Tax Cuts and Raise Additional
Revenues.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From the Center for American Progress, Apr. 14, 2023]
Biden Tax Proposals Would Correct Inequities Created by Trump Tax Cuts
and Raise Additional Revenues
(By Jean Ross)
Key members of the new U.S. House of Representatives
Republican majority have announced their intention to
permanently extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which
the Republican-controlled Congress enacted in 2017. Signed
into law by then-President Donald Trump, the TCJA slashed
taxes for corporations and the wealthy and on the estates the
wealthy pass on to their heirs. The law permanently cut the
corporate tax rate and changed the way the United States
imposes taxes on multinational corporations. It also included
a temporary reduction in personal income tax rate along with
other personal income tax changes that expire at the end of
2025. Overall, the measure was projected to increase the
federal deficit by about $1.9 trillion over 10 years,
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The
wealthiest 5 percent of households received nearly half--42.6
percent--of the Trump tax cuts, with the top 0.1 percent
receiving an average tax cut of $193,380 in 2018.
Nearly all of the TCJA's personal income tax changes sunset
at the end of 2025. By including a sunset date, the bill was
able to move through the Senate with no support from members
of the Senate minority. This allowed the Senate to consider
the bill using the reconciliation process, which requires
that a measure not increase the deficit over the long term
and that it fit within the reconciliation instructions--in
this case, within the maximum deficit increase allowed by the
budget resolution passed by the House and the Senate.
Congressional leaders included an expiration date as a means
to game the rules designed to impose fiscal discipline, as
demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of House
Republicans approved a measure making the TCJA's individual
tax cuts permanent less than one year after the TCJA was
signed into law.
As part of his fiscal year 2024 budget proposal, President
Joe Biden introduced a set of tax proposals that would reform
and reverse some of the changes made by the TCJA and take
ambitious steps toward ensuring that income from wealth is
taxed comparably to that from work. Taken as a whole, the
Biden proposal would substantially improve the equity of the
nation's tax code while raising revenues to support
investments that will advance economic growth and
opportunities and the well-being of American families. This
issue brief examines and contrasts between the two sets of
proposals, which offer starkly different visions for the
future on the nation's tax laws.
The TCJA provided massive tax cuts for the wealthy
The TCJA made sweeping changes to the nation's tax laws--
including some for low- and middle-income households--that
provided the largest tax cuts to the wealthy. The law
included four major changes expiring at the end of 2025 that
were overwhelmingly tilted to high-income Americans:
Cutting the top tax rate: The TCJA cut the top personal
income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent on taxable
income of more than $600,000 for married couples or $500,000
for single people or heads of household. The lowering of the
top tax rate had no impact on the taxes paid by a middle-
income household but did, for example, provide a $119,918 tax
cut to a married couple with $5 million in taxable income in
2018.
Creating a new pass-through loophole: The TCJA allows
owners of partnerships, limited liability companies, and
other so-called pass-through businesses to escape tax on 20
percent of their income. Pass-through business income has
skyrocketed in recent decades and is highly concentrated
at the top of the income scale. From 1979 to 2019, total
business income received by the top 1 percent of
households rose nearly sixfold (587 percent). By contrast,
labor income--wages and salaries--increased by 248
percent, and capital gains and other capital income, which
accounts for the largest fraction of income received by
the top 1 percent, rose by 152 percent. The 20 percent
deduction effectively reduces the top rate on pass-through
income
[[Page H601]]
for owners in qualifying industries from 37 percent to
29.6 percent. As a result, a married architect with
$300,000 in taxable income from a pass-through business
would pay $13,157 less in personal income taxes than a
person with the same amount of wage and salary income in
2022. Recent research by economist Lucas Goodman and
colleagues analyzing administrative tax data found ``no
evidence of any immediate 'real' responses to section 199A
in terms of investment, employment, or wages.
Dramatically reducing the alternative minimum tax (AMT):
The AMT was designed to ensure that higher-income people who
claim certain tax breaks pay at least some minimum amount of
personal income tax. Prior to the TCJA, the AMT worked as a
partial backstop; however, its ability to ensure that the
wealthiest paid a minimum amount of tax was limited by the
fact that it did not apply to income from either realized or
unrealized capital gains. The TCJA substantially weakened the
AMT by increasing the amount of income exempt from the tax
from $86,200 to $109,400 for married taxpayers and from
$55,400 to $70,300 for single filers. It also increased the
income level--where the exemption begins to phase out--from
$164,100 for married couples and $123,100 for single people
to $1 million and $500,000, respectively, and indexed the
exemption for inflation going forward. Taken together, these
changes substantially limited the ability of the AMT to
ensure that households claiming certain tax preferences paid
at least a minimum amount of tax and dramatically reduced the
number of households affected by the AMT. The Tax Policy
Center, for example, projected that the number of AMT
taxpayers fell from more than 5 million m 2017 to just
200,000 in 2018.
Lowering taxes on Inherited wealth: The TCJA doubled the
amount of wealth that can be passed on tax-free to heirs. The
exemption, which was $11 million per couple in 2017, is now
$25.8 million and is indexed for inflation. This change
contributed to a reduction in the number of estates with any
tax liability by roughly half, from to 5,185 in 2017 to 2,584
in 2021.
Taken as a whole, the TCJA slashed the taxes of the
wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans by an average of $193,380
in its first year of implementation--more than 200 times the
average $930 reduction for households in the middle fifth of
the income distribution.
The TCJA permanently slashed taxes for profitable corporations
The 2017 law slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent
to 21 percent and shifted the United States to a territorial
system of taxing the income of multinational corporations,
which exempts certain offshore income from tax. Unlike the
changes to personal income taxes, nearly all the corporate
law changes were made permanent, signaling their importance
to the drafters of the law. To date, there is little evidence
that the corporate tax changes boosted investment or
employment, as promised by the law's proponents, or that the
changes aimed at stemming offshore profit shifting have
managed to do so.
Wealthy households also disproportionately benefited from
the tax rate cut and other corporate tax changes in the bill,
which increased corporations' after-tax rates of return. In
2019, the most recent year for which data are available, the
wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households owned 38 percent of
overall equity holdings. Foreigners, who owned 40 percent of
US corporate equity in 2020, also benefited significantly
from the reductions as the corporate tax.
While the House Republican leadership's approach would
entrench the costly and regressive corporate tax cuts enacted
in 2017, President Biden's fiscal year 2024 budget would take
steps to unwind them. The corporate minimum tax enacted as
part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is designed to
ensure that large and very profitable corporations pay at
least some minimum amount of tax, however far corporate
taxes remain below their pre-TCJA level. President Biden's
fiscal year 2024 budget proposal would modestly raise the
corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. And it
would make important changes to the system of taxing
profits of multinational corporations that would bring the
United States into compliance with the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's two-pillar
framework, which establishes a global minimum tax on very
large multinational corporations and penalizes profit
shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
Extending the TCJA's temporary provisions would be costly and
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy
While the temporary provisions of the TCJA will mostly
expire at the end of 2025, a number of House Republicans have
already announced their desire to make the temporary changes
permanent without offsetting these changes' cost. Doing so
would substantially add to the United States' fiscal
challenges by lowering tax revenues by about $3.1 trillion
from 2027--the first full year that the changes would take
effect--through 2036, equivalent to slight less than 1
percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The additional cost
of extension would come on top of the ongoing cost of the
permanent changes contained in the bill, nearly all of which
reduced corporate and other business taxes. The 2017 law
changes, along with those from the tax cuts originally
enacted under President George W. Bush, substantially
increased the federal debt and are the major source of the
rise in the U.S. debt ratio: the ratio of debt to GDP.
Making the 2017 changes permanent would also compound the
damage done to the fairness of the tax code by extending
large tax breaks for the wealthy and exacerbating inequities
that enable them to shelter large shares of their income from
taxation. The top 0.1 percent of households would receive an
average tax cut more than 175 times the size of that received
by middle-income families, on average--$175,710 as compared
with $990, respectively, in 2026--and the poorest fifth of
households would receive, on average, just $100. Moreover,
high-income households would continue to benefit from the
already permanent corporate tax cuts discussed above.
Biden tax proposals would increase taxes on the wealthy, expand tax
credits for workers and families with children
President Biden's fiscal year 2024 budget includes a set of
proposals that would reverse many of the TCJA's tax cuts for
the wealthy and reform how the tax code treats income from
unrealized gains. The Biden budget would also restore the
child tax credit's full refundability and expand the credit
from $2,000 per child to $3,000 per child for children age 6
and older and to $3,600 per child for children younger than 6
years old. Taken as a whole, these proposals would, on
average, result in lower taxes for the bottom 90 percent of
the income distribution while significantly increasing taxes
on the top 1 percent. Specifically, the president's budget
proposal would:
Restore the top 39.6 percent tax rate for married couples
with taxable income of more than $450,000 and single earners
with taxable income above $400,000. The TCJA lowered the top
rate to 37 percent.
Equalize the tax rate on capital income with the rate on
work for millionaires. Currently, long-term capital gains and
qualified dividends are taxed at a rate of 20 percent. The
new rate would only apply to the extent that the taxpayer's
taxable income exceeds $1 million ($500,000 for married
people filing separately) and would be indexed for inflation
after 2024.
End the so-called stepped-up basis at death for assets that
are passed on to heirs by taxing capital gains at death or
the date of transfer. The proposal would also impose a 25
percent minimum tax on the total income of taxpayers with
wealth exceeding $100 million. The tax would apply to income
from unrealized capital gains and would function as a pre-
payment of the tax that would ultimately be owed when the
gain is recognized at sale or death. Taken together, these
provisions would close loopholes that currently allow the
very wealthy to avoid ever paying taxes on appreciated
investments.
Stem the abuse of tax-preferred retirement accounts by the
wealthy. The president's proposal would impose a minimum
distribution requirement on tax-favored retirement account
balances exceeding $10 million. It would also limit the
ability of the wealthy to use so-called mega IRAs to avoid
paying capital gains taxes and to avoid paying estate taxes
on amounts passed on to wealthy heirs.
Close the carried interest loophole that allows investment
fund managers to treat most of their income as capital
gains--which are taxed at a lower rate--rather than wage and
salary income. The change would apply to individuals with
taxable incomes above $400,000.
Close loopholes in the net investment income tax (NIIT)
that benefit high-income taxpayers with pass-through business
income, ensuring that all pass-through business income is
treated consistently with other investment earnings of high-
income individuals. The president would also increase the
NIIT and related Medicare payroll tax rate by 1.2 percentage
points for those with more than $400,000 of income and
dedicate the entire proceeds of the tax to boost the solvency
of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
The TCJA doubled the size of the child tax credit from
$1,000 to $2,000 per child, made the credit partially
refundable, and phased it in faster, so that families whose
incomes were too low to receive the benefit of the credit
could receive some assistance. It also extended eligibility
to higher-income families. These changes all expire at the
end of 2025.
In 2021, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) temporary increased
the credit for one year only to $3,600 per child up to age 6
and to $3,000 per child aged 6-17. Importantly, the ARP made
the credit fully refundable and removed the income phase-in,
making it fully available to families, including those with
little or no income, who previously received a partial credit
or no benefit at all. The ARP also allowed families to
receive up to half of their credit as a monthly payment,
making it available to help meet ongoing living expenses such
as rent and groceries. The ARP's expansion, which applied for
one year only, resulted in a historic reduction in child
poverty, lifting 2.1 million children out of poverty in the
United States.
The president's proposal would restore the size of the
credit to its ARP level, make it fully refundable, and
establish a monthly payment mechanism. These changes would
apply in 2023 through 2025 and correct a flaw that left
families who could benefit most from the expanded credit with
little or no assistance and help sustain the reduction in
child poverty observed in 2021.
[[Page H602]]
The Biden budget proposals address flaws in U.S. tax system that allow
the wealthiest to avoid taxes
The president's proposed minimum tax would address flaws
that allow the nation's very wealthiest families to pay a
lower tax rate than middle-income families or even then
slightly less wealthy counterparts. Recent research examines
the impact of provisions of the tax law that provide
preferential treatment for investment income and the fact
that this income goes untaxed until an asset is sold. Taken
together, these factors allow the wealthy to pay low tax
rates year after year and, in many instances, to avoid paying
tax altogether.
Using a broader measure of earnings that includes income
from unsold stock, economists Greg Leiserson and Danny Yagan
estimated the average individual tax rate paid by the United
States' 400 wealthiest families and found that for the period
from 2010 to 2018, they paid an average tax rate of 8.2
percent. This analysis takes into account the benefits the
wealthy receive from the assets they own, as well as the tax
preferences provided to realized and unrealized investment
income.
A separate analysis by Martin Sullivan, using only income
reported for tax purposes, compared the taxes paid by the
superwealthy--those earning more than $10 million--versus
their modestly wealthy counterparts and found the federal
income tax to be progressive up until the very-highest
incomes. This analysis cites the wealthiest individuals' very
high share of income from tax-preferenced capital gains and
dividends as the reason for the sizeable drop in their
average tax rates. These households had adjusted gross
incomes (AGI) of more than $10 million but paid a rate that
was lower than that paid by those reporting $1 million to $10
million in AGI. Tax-favored capital gains and dividends
accounted for the majority of the income of the
superwealthy--57.8 percent in 2020, as compared with 37.6
percent for those with incomes of $5 million to $l0 million
and less than 4 percent for those with incomes below
$200,000. The author of the study notes that the disparity
would be even more significant if the income from unrealized
gains is taken into account, saying:
Perhaps the absence of unrealized gain from the tax base
wouldn't be such a big deal if working folks and the rich all
had unrealized gains proportionate to their taxable income.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Most working
folks have relatively small or nonexistent unrealized gains
(except for gains on their personal residences). For the
superrich, unrealized gains routinely account for an
overwhelmingly large proportion of their wealth accumulation.
Conclusion
Congress should not extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts. In
fact, debate over the law's future should revisit and reform
its permanent changes to corporate tax law that have failed
to deliver on their promises and that endanger the nation's
fiscal future. In contrast, President Biden's fiscal year
2024 tax proposals outline an alternative vision that helps
ensure that the wealthy and very large profitable
corporations pay a more equitable share of taxes, supports
families with children, and raises revenues to support
critical investments and fiscal stability.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this report details the massive tax
breaks that the Trump and Republican 2018 tax bill primarily benefited
the wealthiest Americans, and we constantly hear them want to make it
permanent. We constantly hear them say: Oh, those were the greatest
things, except for when they need to have a couple of their Members get
reelected. We are looking for a repeat of what we saw yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Molinaro).
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Speaker, imagine spending so much time and so much
energy and so much air opposing that which one actually supports. I
have sat here for a few moments, and I have listened to my colleague
across the aisle suggest they didn't break it and therefore they should
be under no obligation to fix it; that for years they have been trying
to remedy this problem, but it is the other side of the aisle's fault
and therefore we won't take this next step forward. Imagine that is
your argument.
I wasn't here when the SALT cap was established. I opposed it in
local government, mostly because I know that middle-class families in
upstate New York are being--I will use the language; pardon me--screwed
by decisions of State government, decisions out of their control.
Let's talk about what this bill does. This is a very simple effort to
ensure tax fairness for working families. Last week, the House came
together and recognized commonsense tax relief is a shared priority
between both parties. I was proud to support the bipartisan bill that
helped parents and small businesses weather rising costs, but we left
low-hanging fruit on the table, a simple incremental success. Right
now, married couples are unfairly and arbitrarily punished with the
SALT deduction in a way that matches almost no other facet of the tax
code.
Let's make one thing clear. We are not talking about the wealthiest
of New Yorkers that are being impacted here. I am talking about
families and parents in towns and communities like Vestal, Dryden, and
Hudson, upstate communities that most don't know, but they struggle
every day, they are barely getting by because they are being slammed by
property taxes and State taxes. These are not individuals who choose to
be overtaxed. They were forced to by Democrats and one-party rule in
the State of New York.
{time} 1300
These folks are struggling every day to make ends meet, and they are
having many difficult choices to make between childcare, groceries, and
their mortgage all because they get taxed twice on their incomes. This
bill doesn't solve the entire problem, and my colleague knows it. This
bill doesn't undo the damage that we both agree existed.
Nonetheless, my colleague is faced with one important question: Will
they support an effort to undo this one piece of unfairness?
Double the SALT cap for married couples, eliminate the arbitrary
marriage penalty, and free up working families' budgets to invest in
their kids and their local economies. This isn't about what happened
then, and it is not about who broke it. It is whether or not we can
find, as we did last week, the commonality to begin to fix it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' fix needs a fix. Really. They are
proposing that instead of actually fixing the SALT problem, they keep
trying to say: Oh, it is all right for us to do just a teeny, tiny,
little bit just as long as we can get reelected, because if they really
wanted to fix it, then they would have at least taken it up and raised
it in committee, had a good debate, and brought it to the floor with a
robust fix that actually makes a difference not just for an election
year.
I might remind everybody, again, that in the Rules Committee, Joe
Neguse, a member of the Rules Committee, proposed that this SALT fix
actually go for 2 years so that it would be consistent with the other
tax cuts that Trump did. They didn't want that.
The other thing that the amendment does was strike $20,000 and half
$30,000. They didn't want that either. Every single Republican voted
against it. Every single Republican voted against having this goal for
2 years.
Why?
It was because that wasn't part of the deal. They don't need it after
November, I guess. They only need it for this November.
Is that it?
Once November goes by, their constituents don't need another year of
tax relief with regard to this deduction?
Why would they vote against that?
I have no idea why they would not let the Members on the floor of the
House decide whether this bill should go for 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about fairness. I do want to
mention, though, the memory is a little short on the other side of the
aisle. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act where this was implemented was passed
on reconciliation. It only required a simple majority.
Moreover, the Democrats when they passed the Inflation Reduction Act
depended on only a simple majority. They could easily have put their
recommended SALT cures into that bill. It absolutely fits in with
reconciliation which are budgetary items. That is what this is.
Nonetheless, they chose not to.
So one has to ask: Why did they choose to spend $1 trillion on
expensive green energy projects and not yield tax relief to their own
constituents?
I can't answer that, only they can. Nevertheless, let's set the
record
[[Page H603]]
straight. The Democrats had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted
to on SALT. They complained about it for years. They could have fixed
it. They choose not to. They deliberately chose not to in a vehicle
that only required a simple majority.
So this is about fairness.
Mr. Speaker, when we passed that in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--one of
the greatest stimuli to the American economy ever--we, interestingly,
chose not to inflation index that $10,000. Now, thanks to Bidenflation,
it should be around $15,000.
So our decision is that even just to make it fair for inflation
caused by President Biden and his policies, we could have chosen to
just raise it $15,000, but, no, we did, I think, what was the right
thing to do, which is to say that there is no penalty to a family,
because on this side of the aisle we actually think the idea of family
is pretty good for this country. We don't want to disincentivize it.
We decided we would take and just remove what I would call the
marriage penalty from this. I think it is the right decision.
One of the gentlemen who supports this mentioned that this goes far
beyond blue States. This goes into States where, because of
Bidenflation, housing prices have gone up, and, Mr. Speaker, I
guarantee you, those property taxes are going to go up for a variety of
reasons.
The time to do this is now, it is appropriate, and I fully support
the rule.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we just have to keep saying it over and over again: How
dare the majority scold us for not fixing a problem that they created.
How dare they scold us, and how dare they actually even think about it
when they don't want to fix the problem.
The majority's fix needs fixing. Let's move on.
I was flabbergasted when I heard my colleagues say that the Trump tax
cuts, which benefited the wealthy, the superwealthy, the millionaires,
and the billionaires, were the greatest stimulus ever. They were
actually not.
Mr. Speaker, I call Members' attention to a report titled: ``The
Biden Tax Proposals Would Correct Inequities Created By Trump Tax Cuts
and Raise Additional Revenues.''
Mr. Speaker, what this report shows is that it wasn't the greatest
stimulus, indeed, that with the Trump tax cuts, revenue plummeted from
the expected.
Those Trump tax cuts are the reason we have the deficits, which is
what they always usually complain about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that today's legislative calendar highlights
the very distinct differences in priorities and values between
Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats are committed to putting people over politics. We are
dedicated to lowering costs for everyday Americans, to raising the
middle class, to growing that middle class, and to investing in our
communities.
On the other hand, the Republicans don't have much of an agenda other
than chaos and trying to win the next election.
The SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act is a Band-Aid on a wound
Republicans inflicted on the American people when they passed the Trump
tax cuts. It is not the kind of emergency that should be taking up our
time when we don't have a budget, when we can't pay our bills in a
couple of weeks, and when we have Putin possibly winning the war in
Ukraine.
Be that as it may, here we are taking that up and taking up a
nonbinding resolution about the President's energy policies that ignore
how much we have invested in clean energy, how many jobs we have
created in the energy sector, and how we are lowering prices.
That is putting people and our planet first.
Their nonbinding resolution does nothing. Republicans keep taking up
our time doing nothing on this House floor. We should be on the House
floor this week talking about funding the government.
The American people deserve more than the political stunts and the
partisan gridlock that comes out of this wonderful, beautiful people's
House. It was in this people's House last Congress that we got so much
done.
We invested in our infrastructure, we invested in our communities,
and we saved America from the economic catastrophe that we were facing
coming out of a pandemic. We did so much then, and we have done so
little now. What a contrast.
Be that as it may, in the face of chaos and dysfunction, I and
everybody in my Democratic Caucus remain steadfast in our commitment to
progress and prosperity for all Americans.
The bills that we will be taking up if this rule passes--if this rule
passes, they keep defeating their rules--they won't be doing that. This
is a teeny, tiny, little Band-Aid on a big, open wound. This rule is
all about politics and not about people.
Let's reject the rule and put people over politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
Today, we have heard plenty of arguments and weak accusations pushing
back on a necessary piece of legislation that provides relief for
hardworking, middle-class Americans crushed by an economy racked with
inflation and gouged by the failed tax-and-spend policies of State
governments like my own State of New York.
These aren't the richest of Americans we are talking about here,
these are everyday families who just want to achieve the American Dream
in an economy ravaged by skyrocketing costs and State and local
governments that play to the whims of the radical left. Congress has an
opportunity today to make a straightforward, reasonable fix that will
make an enormous difference in the finances and futures of these
hardworking Americans in States across this great country.
Mr. Speaker, we also have the opportunity to send a powerful message
from this Chamber today to the Biden administration and to the world
that Congress does not endorse and, in fact, condemns the President's
decision to bring our Nation's LNG exports to a screeching halt.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moolenaar). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________