House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.
The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations.
The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief.
Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate.
'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.'
He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place.
'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said.
'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.'
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.'
'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate.
'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.'
Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.'
The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate.
While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California.
The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson.
'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).
One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson.
'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.'
This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing.
'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.'
While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite.
'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.'
'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.'
House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing.
'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.'
Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.'
Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence.
'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.'
'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added.
Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added.
When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate
WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats – including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats – the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Bernie Sanders reacts to US strikes on Iran during speech
Sen. Bernie Sanders held a "Fighting Oligarchy" rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when he received news of President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran.
