SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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.

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

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. 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.''

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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 994 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kean), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.