Katie Porter

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is a ticking time bomb. The country that figures out how to defuse it will get huge returns on their investments. That is why our global competitor nations are investing in green energy. They know that the economy that learns how to manufacture in the cleanest way possible will secure thousands of jobs for its workers. These are jobs in manufacturing and also in research, engineering, and education. In short, the country that best understands green energy today will have the strongest economy tomorrow. That can and should be the United States. I am proud to represent the scientists at the University of California Irvine who are doing cutting-edge research on fuel cell energy storage, energy conversion, and more. We have to support the work of their peers. To have a strong, stable, and globally competitive economy, we need green energy. For Orange County, for the United States, and for our planet, we cannot continue to rely on the technology of yesterday.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, when I was a law professor at U.C. Irvine, I wrote a 600-page textbook on consumer protection. And luckily for everyone, you do not need to read the book to understand one fundamental truth: Nobody likes to get cheated; not Republicans, not Democrats; not young, not old; not White, not Brown, not Black. Nobody likes to get cheated. But when consumers do get cheated, the only way they get justice is if they get their money back. The Federal Trade Commission has used its authority under section 13(b) of the FTC Act to return literally billions of dollars to victims of a wide range of scams; everything from telemarketing fraud to companies lying about how their products can be used to prevent or treat COVID. If a wrongdoer steals from you, it is the FTC's job to put your money back into your pocket. The Consumer Protection and Recovery Act lets the FTC return to doing just that.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, 2020 was California's worst fire season on record, and 2021 has the potential to be even worse. Wildfires damage property, pollute our air, and threaten lives, and we need to take action. I have been calling for fair pay for Federal firefighters. These brave Americans put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe, and I am glad that the Biden administration recently committed to paying Federal firefighters at least $15 an hour. As we begin another fire season, we need to strengthen our coordination across levels of government to learn from past disasters. I have introduced legislation to create an independent board to closely examine and report on natural disasters. This will keep families safe and save taxpayers money. And, of course, we need to tackle a key contributor to worsening fire seasons, the climate crisis. As we move forward on infrastructure legislation, environmental protection must be a priority. For the millions of Americans and Californians hurt by wildfires each year, doing nothing is not an option.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act protects our Nation's government watchdogs. Inspectors general are independent officials responsible for preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse. They safeguard the interests of taxpayers and weed out corruption. We need stronger protections to prevent biased or unqualified acting inspectors general from assuming these vital roles. I championed such measures in my Accountability for Acting Officials Act, and I am proud to say they are included in the chairwoman's bill. These provisions would forbid dual-hatting, serving as both a political appointee and an acting inspector general at the same agency. This conflict of interest compromises the independence of the inspector general's work. American taxpayers fund these agencies. They deserve to know that those agencies are working on their behalf. They deserve inspectors general who will fight to protect their dollars and our government's integrity. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act. I thank Chair Maloney for her leadership on government integrity, including this important bill.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I am here today to champion tax fairness for every American across the country, across parties, and across the aisle. We are here tonight to talk about what does it mean to have a fair tax system. Since coming to Congress, I have repeatedly heard from my constituents about how the Trump tax bill doubled the taxes they owe due to an arbitrary cap on allowable State and local tax deductions, often called SALT. In the last year before this arbitrary $10,000 cap was imposed, nearly two in five taxpayers in my district claimed the SALT deduction, and their average deduction was $22,000 per household. They were paying an average of $22,000 in State and local taxes. Capping the SALT deduction created double taxation on those families, and it penalized millions of middle-class families--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--based solely on the State where they live. It is an unfair Federal tax system to penalize people based solely on their State of residence, yet that is what this arbitrary SALT tax cap does. Given the rising cost of housing, prescription drugs, college, and childcare, every dollar counts for American families and families in Orange County. This is especially true after a year of financial hardship during which millions of families across the country are struggling to stay afloat. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the country and across the aisle to restore the State and local tax deduction to create a fairer tax system for every American.

Ms. PORTER. That is right. Because cities and counties depend on the resources from State and local taxes to be able to pay for schools, to do a good job educating every single child, to make investments in roads and bridges, to pay first responders fair wages for putting their lives on the line to protect us. These are the kinds of policies that progressives champion, and we cannot ask our cities and our States and, most importantly, our fellow Americans to make those kinds of investments on the city, county, village, and local level, and then have the Federal Government treat them unfairly solely because they are trying to do right by each other in their community.

Ms. PORTER. The basic principle of an income tax is that you are taxed on the money that you have available to purchase things, to purchase goods and services, to invest, to save. You are taxed on that. That is what a progressive system of taxation means. When you are having taxes taken out of your paycheck, or you owe taxes to your State and local government, you do not have that income left over. So let's use an example. If someone earns $100,000 and they pay, as is typical in my district, $20,000 in State and local tax, that is not optional. They must pay that $20,000 under the law. What they have left to provide for their family, to save for college, to pay for housing, to do other things, is $80,000. That is the amount of income that the Federal Government should tax. What the SALT cap does is say to the family earning $100,000: You can only deduct $10,000, a completely arbitrary number. What that does is say to a family that only has $80,000 left because they had to pay the county, they had to pay the city, they had to pay for fire services and school services. And they pay that money because they are proud of their community and they want our communities to thrive. But then they are taxed as if they have $90,000 available to them, but they don't. They only have $80,000. So this whole idea of capping the State and local tax deduction is completely contrary to the entire basic theory of an income tax, which is you pay tax on your available income. If you owe money to the State and county government, whether it is for property tax or State or city taxes, you do not have that money left. In effect, these families are being asked to pay money and find money they do not have relative to their peers in other parts of the country. That is simply an unfair tax system.

Ms. PORTER. That is right. So the State and local tax deduction is really about saying that two families in two different States, trying to support themselves on the identical amount of income, ought to owe the same amount of Federal tax. That is what we are here to champion today. I am proud to be doing it with colleagues from across the country and across the aisle.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, July marks the 75th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear test in the Marshall Islands, a tragedy that continues today. Orange County is proud to be home to one of the oldest Marshallese- American communities. But why the Marshallese came to the United States is a disgraceful chapter in our Nation's history. From 1946 to 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. We deceived the Marshallese, using them as guinea pigs to study the effects of radiation. We turned ancestral lands into dumping grounds for nuclear waste. We still haven't done the bare minimum to make this right. We established a tribunal for compensation but provided less than 10 percent of the money owed. We don't even translate environmental studies into Marshallese. Our nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands is at the nexus of President Biden's top priorities: racial justice, healthcare, climate change, U.S. global reputation, and countering China through diplomacy. We must commit across party lines to make this right.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude to Chairwoman Waters for allowing me to speak in support of invalidating the predatory true lender rule. In our home State, the legislature passed an interest rate cap of 36 percent on loans of up to $10,000 about 2 years ago. Before California Governor Newsom had even signed this bill into law, predatory online lenders began plotting during their shareholder earnings calls to evade the new law through rent-a-bank arrangements. Companies like Speedy Cash and CashNetUSA went so far as to gloat about the California law creating a huge opportunity for them by driving out their competition, subprime title lenders based in California. Since the founding of the United States, States have chosen to impose their own limits on interest rates that lenders may charge consumers. The Trump administration's true lender rule greenlit these rent-a-bank schemes and, in doing so, undermined the will of Californians who, through the democratic process, chose to prohibit abusive interest rates. The true lender rule violates our federalist democracy, and it must be invalidated.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, equality and justice are core values of this country, yet for Americans with mental illness, the risk of being killed when approached by law enforcement is 16 times higher. An estimated one in four fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with mental illness. We are not fulfilling the promise of equality and justice for Americans with mental illnesses and disabilities. That is why I introduced the Mental Health Justice Act, which would create specialized mental health first responder units. If someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, they are better served by a trained mental health professional, not a police officer. Mental illness is not a crime, and we have to stop treating it like one. Getting the right help to individuals with mental illnesses prevents them from getting tangled up in a system that isn't built to serve their needs. The Mental Health Justice Act makes our communities healthier and safer, more equal, and more just.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Under the Higher Education Act, students who are defrauded by private predatory colleges are entitled to relief on their loans. The prior administration created a streamlined process to help defrauded borrowers access relief and move forward with their lives. Secretary DeVos tried to strip those protections away, but we fought back. Some of my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate voted with us to overturn Secretary Betsy DeVos' new rule. We came together to defend students and to stand up against fraud, waste, and abuse. But President Trump vetoed this important resolution. Instead of standing with students and taxpayers, President Trump stood with corrupt private colleges and Secretary DeVos. Today, I ask my Republican friends: Do you want to stand with our country's students, with the future of our workforce and our communities, or do you want to betray them to please the President? I think the choice is clear, and I hope you do, too.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, Americans are suffering enough from this pandemic. They deserve the best policy to help them. Even if infection rates go down in May and June, unemployment will keep going up. The Paycheck Recovery Act would protect our capitalist economy, which the virus is attacking. It would preserve businesses and give workers what they need most: their paychecks so they can provide for their families. The HEROES Act should have used this approach, but I know our States and local governments and our frontline workers cannot wait for Federal help. I, therefore, support this bill.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for suspension votes on Tuesday, March 3, 2020 due to the California primary election. Had I been present, I would have assented to H. Res. 387, H.R. 4508, and H. Res. 230 passing by voice vote.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for suspension votes on Monday, March 2, 2020 due to the California primary election. Had I been present, I would have assented to H.R. 5931, H.R. 5003, H.R. 5932, and H.R. 4351 passing by voice vote.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we have promised to serve the American people, and this means keeping American families safe and secure. But for too long, Congress has put fealty to the special interest of the gun lobby ahead of our safety. I cannot afford to live in fear of special interests. Why? Because every single day when I send my three children off to school, I live in fear for their safety; because I have seen the pain on the faces of those parents whose children never came home from school, the parents who hugged their children good-bye in the morning, never knowing it would be for the last time; because no parent should ever have to mourn a child lost to preventable gun violence; and because, as your Member of Congress, I have the power to fight for change. This is the power that Congress has, and this is why 1 year ago, we passed landmark legislation to reduce gun violence in this country. Under current law, only federally licensed vendors must conduct background checks, but this creates loopholes for private sellers. This means that there are no background checks on private sales, including gun shows and online transactions. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act closes this loophole and will ensure that nearly all gun sales are run through the National Criminal Background Check System. This legislation is common sense. In fact, two former GOP Congressmen wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in support of the legislation. They said: ``This bill doesn't take away anyone's guns.'' It represents ``a critical step in the right direction at a time when more and more Americans are touched by gun violence.'' This is a clear, commonsense, American solution that is now being held hostage by Senator Mitch McConnell, the President, and the gun lobby. And this is a uniquely American issue. No other country experiences the same epidemic of gun violence. In fact, guns are the second-leading cause of death for American children and teens; nearly 1,700 are killed by guns every year. In my home State of California, an average of 246 children and teens die from guns every year. Since the beginning of 2014 in California, over 14,000 people, including, heartbreakingly, 120 law enforcement officers, have been injured or killed due to gun violence. Mr. Speaker, 47 of those people hurt or killed were in my district in Orange County, the 45th. We have lost 34 members of our community in just 4 years to gun violence. Orange County families have made their feelings heard, time and again, that they want us to strengthen gun violence prevention laws. I am standing here as proof that Orange County wants action on gun reform. Keeping our families safe is at the heart of our community's values. I want to share a story of one Orange County family with my colleagues here in Congress. This is a story of a family who experienced loss from gun violence and, yet, found the strength to dedicate their lives to making sure that others don't experience similar tragedies. Mary Leigh and Charlie Blek from Orange County have fought tirelessly for commonsense gun legislation in California. Their son, Matthew Blek, was only 21 years old when he was shot and killed while visiting New York City. He was a victim of armed robbery by teens using a small handgun, also known as a junk gun. In memory of their son, the Bleks founded Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence in 1995. For 5 long, hard-fought years, they advocated for safety regulations that would rid California of the type of gun that killed their son, and they succeeded. California used to produce 80 percent of the junk guns for the Nation. California no longer produces these junk guns and has enacted safety standards for handguns. Still today, the Bleks are vigilant in preventing the gun lobby from finding a way to sell dangerous handguns in California. The Bleks now lead the Orange County chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. I am personally very grateful for their efforts. No family should ever have to go through what the Bleks suffered, but too many in our own communities have. And because the Senate has yet to act, nothing has changed. It has been 1 year since we passed H.R. 8. It has been almost 2 years since the Parkland school shooting, and over 7 years since the Sandy Hook shooting. And until this Congress, there has not been any change coming out of Washington. Time is running out. Congress has the power to stop more people--more children--from dying from gun violence, and we must act. Now more than ever, we need the American people to insist that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up to the gun lobby and stand up to join in the fight to reduce gun violence. We all have a duty to be leaders, not shills for the gun lobby, not cowards afraid to lose an A-rating. Our children deserve our courage. Our children deserve leaders who will fight to ensure that families are safe at school, in parks, at the movies, and at concerts. As your Member of Congress, as a mother, and as a member of the Orange County community, I will never back down from this fight. I will not be bought, and I will not be silenced by the gun lobby or by the President. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, for her powerful words in this time of tragedy in her district. I thank her for bringing the voice of those we lost to the United States Congress. I really appreciate her passion and compassion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, when Donald Trump was running for President, he promised that he would balance the budget, eliminate the national debt, and protect programs that support American families. He continues to promise to balance the budget, but his latest math is based on fantasy. The President's budget cuts the programs that Americans rely on and those that Americans have invested in in order to fund more tax cuts for the wealthy, a bigger defense budget, and an ineffective border wall. If it isn't clear yet, the President failed to be truthful. He is putting special interests above the health and safety of hardworking American families. Our national debt is bigger than ever, and taxpayer dollars have been wasted paying for tax cuts that benefit the rich and powerful. Here is the stone-cold truth: President Trump is reneging on his promise to protect older Americans and those with disabilities. His proposed budget cuts billions from Social Security and Medicare. These drastic cuts and his failure to keep his word will devastate millions of Americans. Social Security has lifted millions of older Americans out of poverty, but the President doesn't think it is necessary to continue supporting our most vulnerable older Americans. The President would also slash the budget for the Administration for Community Living. Americans need this agency to support those who are aging and those who have disabilities, as well as their caregivers, so that they can age in place and live their best life every day of their lives. I have heard countless times from Orange County residents that they want the choice to grow older in their homes in our beautiful community that they have spent much of their lives in. The President's budget takes these choices away. Right now, our country is struggling to keep up with our global competitors. And apparently right now the President thinks this is a good time to gut funding for medical research and innovation. The President wants to cut investments in medical research at the National Institutes of Health that provide the pipeline for new cures and that spur innovation. The President wants to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These agencies ensure that there are qualified health professionals who can move new medical discoveries into healthcare and public-health delivery, support Americans while they are awaiting new cures, and prevent them from getting sick in the first place. The President also wants to cut funding for the Food and Drug Administration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Americans need the Food and Drug Administration to approve new, safe, and effective treatments and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to provide evidence on what treatments work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. If you follow the President's budget proposals over his years in office, Madam Speaker, you know that this is a pattern that just keeps repeating, because the President doesn't care about securing healthcare for older Americans, for children, or for everyday Americans, he doesn't care about ensuring that older Americans have a secure and comfortable retirement. He doesn't care that millions of Americans depend on these programs to survive. The cuts as proposed are untenable for America's health and are a radical change from how we funded these programs in decades past. It is my responsibility as a Representative to provide Federal funding in 2021 that aligns with our core values as a nation and that supports the American people, and I promise to put Orange County families first. Unlike the President, I will never break this longstanding promise to my constituents. The President's budget shows willful ignorance of the climate crisis that is threatening our country's natural resources, our communities' health, and our global prosperity. He proposes cuts to environmental protection programs that would only further exacerbate the worst effects of the climate change. Countries around the world are experiencing their warmest winters in history. Antarctica saw temperatures of 65 degrees for the first time in history. We have watched Australia and the rain forests burn. We have watched our home State of California burn. We have seen communities devastated by hurricanes and other adverse weather caused by climate change. The President's proposed budget would slash the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency by 26 percent and cut in half funding for energy research and development. This would gut critical programs like the Land & Water Conservation Fund and tax credits for electric vehicles by millions of dollars each. People are dying, entire species are on the verge of extinction, and communities have been destroyed; but the President wants to devastate bipartisan programs established to protect our natural resources, our communities, and our planet. Who is this budget for? Who are these proposals for? The oil industry, special interests, and the few in this world who gain more from harming our planet than from supporting it. This budget is not for Californians, and it is not for Orange County families. As a mother of three, I fear for the world my children will grow up in, and I cannot stand by and let this President destroy programs that would protect it. On the topic of our children's future, I am disgusted by the President's decision to cut funding for public education while providing yet another tax break for the wealthy and largest corporations. The President's proposal is an outright attack on our public schools which are a real point of pride in the 45th Congressional District. To make matters worse, the budget would make higher education less affordable and less accessible than it already is for too many students. The budget makes a $170 billion cut to student loan programs over the next 10 years. What does this mean for our college students? Increased costs for new students because subsidized student loans would be eliminated, difficulty getting jobs on campus because of cuts to funding for Federal workstudy, and difficulty repaying loans because of the elimination of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This program is based on a simple premise that dedicating yourself to making this country better by responding to emergencies, by educating our students, and by providing care for the sick is an honorable and deeply needed service. These are just some of the many professions performed by those who pursue a career in the public sector. By eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, the President breaks our promise to our first responders, our teachers, and our nurses. These borrowers have tirelessly committed themselves to improving our communities, and we must keep our commitment to them. Despite being in the middle of a historic affordable housing crisis which we feel acutely in Orange County, President Trump wants to make dramatic cuts to the housing and community development programs that serve those in need. The proposal slashes funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by 15 percent. That is $8.6 billion. That money is coming out of essential housing assistance programs that lift up our communities. In a State like California where the affordable housing crisis hits especially hard, these cuts will hurt thousands of families who rely on them to make ends meet. In California, a minimum wage worker would have to work 116 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment or have the good fortune to find a job that pays $35 an hour. But in my district of Orange County, make that $39 per hour, or $80,000 per year. The median cost for a single- family home in Orange County is over $800,000. Do we want to live in a country where only millionaires can afford shelter? Until we address the severe lack of affordable housing in America, we will need programs like community block grants and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to help families. Those funds support affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families, and the President's budget completely eliminates them. His proposal would, quite literally, leave families out in the cold. Taking a chunk out of HUD's budget when home and rental prices are hitting new highs across the country is irresponsible and, frankly, cruel. President Trump says he is for our business owners, but he clearly means mega corporations--Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Wall Street banks-- because his budget eliminates funding for the Economic Development Administration's grant program, and it cuts the Small Business Administration by 11 percent. This budget would harm U.S. innovation and growth and hurt small business owners who are the backbone of our economy. President Trump also wants to cut our foreign aid budget by over 20 percent. That money is about keeping Americans safe and keeping us out of never-ending wars. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, raised similar concerns earlier this week: ``The more we cut the international affairs budget, the higher the risk for longer and deadlier military operations.'' The President's budget puts Americans and our military at risk, rather than funding foreign aid that keeps us safe and secure. We have a responsibility as elected officials to be good stewards of working Americans' hard-earned dollars, and that means funding programs to get families the help that they need, programs that invest in our children, and priorities that keep us safe. Giveaways to special interests and wasted dollars on proposals not grounded in evidence are slaps in the face of our hardworking taxpayers. If this budget is a reflection of the President's values and of his goals and vision for our country, then I am afraid of what policies may come out of this White House next. I constantly seek opportunities to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I look for chances to work with this President as well. But I cannot and I will not support gutting the programs that serve our families and our communities. It is Congress' responsibility to make sure that we spend taxpayer dollars wisely on programs that support economic growth rather than things that line the pockets of special interests and hurt our future. Congress was given the power of the purse as part of a system of checks and balances on the President's power, and it is our responsibility on both sides of the aisle to fight for a real budget grounded in our values and a budget that works for the families and the American people that we represent. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, the administration's Muslim ban has ripped families apart. Orange County families have endured this Muslim ban for 3 long years; yet, the President has doubled down, making it so much worse. Make no mistake, this policy is based on hate. It is based upon dividing us with fear. President Trump showed hostility to Muslims during his campaign. He called for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' Just 7 days into office, the President signed the first version of the Muslim ban. This was never about national security. It was about anti-Muslim hate and discrimination. The families in my community, as well as families across the United States, are suffering. Families in my district are being torn apart by the ban. It is separating husbands from wives, mothers from children, and adults from their dying parents. Let me be clear: No individual or family should be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs. It is why I backed the Freedom of Religion Act, which would prohibit religious discrimination in our immigration system and protect Americans of all faiths--not just Muslim Americans. I am proud that so many Americans have stood together to protest the administration's Muslim ban, to push back and to vote in Representatives like me who will fight discrimination. Today, because the American people made their voices heard, the House of Representatives began the process to repeal this shameful ban. I am proud to be a backer of that legislation, the NO BAN Act, and I will always support and celebrate the vibrant Muslim community in Orange County. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support for the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. Over the last year, I have heard a resounding message from Orange County families, from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. We must repeal the harmful SALT limits included in Trump's tax law. When that law capped State and local tax deductions, it raised taxes on tens of thousands of Orange County families. The average SALT deduction in my district is over $22,000, and by capping the deduction at only $10,000--less than half that amount-- Orange County families are being double taxed on the money they earned. The SALT cap also imposes a marriage penalty, and it is, therefore, antifamily. Reversing SALT is bipartisan. I heard this in April when I held a tax townhall in April. My constituents simply could not understand why Republicans and Democrats could not come together to address the SALT problem and help middle-class families in California while Halliburton, Amazon, and Chevron paid no Federal income tax in 2018.

Ms. PORTER. Our families should not be penalized by double taxation. I thank Chairmen Neal and Thompson for their work on this important bill, and I urge support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, when Congress enacted the first income tax in 1861, in the midst of the Civil War, it included the first exemption for State and local taxes. President Trump's tax law violated our Nation's long-held views of States' rights and a limited Federal Government. It has long been accepted in America that we do not tax the same income twice. Federal taxation must not crowd out the taxes needed to support critical State and local functions like good schools, roads, and bridges. That principle was first stated in the Federalist Papers. It is a core component of States' rights, and it was attacked by Trump's tax law. The SALT deduction expresses the longstanding American preference of local solutions to local problems. President Trump's tax law hurts California communities. By limiting the deductibility of State and local taxes, the Trump tax law was a direct threat to States and communities that are investing in local services. Over the long-term, it will cause local governments to slash revenue that funds schools, healthcare, transit, parks, and first responders. This bill will not only help middle-class families, but it will expand tax relief for educators by doubling the tax credit from $250 to $500. It will create a new tax credit for first responders, the people who put their lives on the line every day to serve us. I am heartened that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to work on a progressive income tax. I am heartened that they want to tax billionaires and ultramillionaires and champion a progressive tax system that addresses income inequality. But this vote today is about principle. It is about standing up for the principle that States and localities are able to fund the services that are most crucial to their communities.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I made a promise to my constituents when I was elected that I would lower drug prices, and that requires a strong, robust plan for negotiating fair prices for Americans. Our constituents are demanding lower drug prices, and this amendment fails to deliver. It does nothing to address the root causes of high drug prices and would let pharma companies continue to raise prices unreasonably for the same drug year after year. I have a bill to stop that, which is included in H.R. 3. The Freedom from Price Gouging Act recovers taxpayer dollars from pharmaceutical companies when they try to hike their prices not just once per year but multiple times every year in order to boost their profits. This legislation has bipartisan support. It is included in Republican Senator Grassley's drug pricing package in the Senate. Without a way to hold drug price increases to at most the rate of inflation, drug companies can just counter your amendment's required discounts by jacking up drug prices and setting sky-high launch prices. They can continue to raise those prices year after year, and the American people will have no choice but to pay those prices because without a way to truly hold drug companies accountable, nothing will change. I believe we need real, substantive reforms, and for a while, so did our President. Though he has recently walked back this commitment, he once promised the American people that he would authorize the HHS Secretary to negotiate a fair deal on drugs. Do you know why he did that? Because drug price negotiation only upsets Big Pharma's CEOs. Everybody else--in fact, 90 percent of Americans--support giving the Secretary the power to negotiate prices for drugs, Democrats, Republicans, independents alike. H.R. 3 does just that. It pairs real reforms on drug pricing with a Medicare part D redesign that caps out-of-pocket expenses for seniors and more equitably shares the responsibility to determine prices among the Federal Government part D plans and drug manufacturers. The Walden amendment fails to achieve that goal. This amendment doesn't help the 150 million Americans with employer insurance, and many of those Americans even with good insurance still can't afford their medications. This amendment will gut protections in H.R. 3 and leave us with legislation that doesn't do nearly enough to rein in the costs of prescription drugs. It is time for all of us to take real action to lower drug prices for our constituents. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.