Providing for Consideration of H.R. Salt Marriage Penalty Elimination Act; and Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Denouncing the Harmful, Anti-American Energy Policies of the Biden Administration

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source