[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.

                          ____________________