What N.J. Republicans are hoping for out of the reconciliation process

In the modern, deeply partisan era, one of the main ways that Congress can accomplish major policy goals is through reconciliation, a budget process allowing the majority party to pass certain legislation without having to obey the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. As the narrow Republican trifecta in Washington debates its goals for the 119th Congress, reconciliation will likely be the vehicle to accomplish much of it.

But what will it contain? The New Jersey Globe spoke in recent weeks to two of New Jersey’s Republican House members, Reps. Chris Smith (R-Manchester) and Jeff Van Drew (R-Dennis), about their hopes for the reconciliation process as it comes into clearer view in the coming months. (The state’s third GOP congressman, Rep. Tom Kean Jr., did not respond to the Globe’s requests for an interview.)

The first thing that Smith and Van Drew brought up: the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap. The cap, put in place in a previous reconciliation bill during President Donald Trump’s first term, limits how much the residents of high-tax states like New Jersey can deduct on their federal taxes, and New Jersey politicians have been calling for its repeal for years; Trump and Republican leaders have indicated they’re open to at least raising the cap above its current $10,000 limit.

Smith and Van Drew both said that they’re optimistic about SALT negotiations, though neither of them seemed to expect (or even want) a total abolition of the cap.

“I’m still looking at all the [reconciliation] components,” Smith said. “I do think we need tax cuts. I do think we’ll get SALT significantly higher – I don’t know how high. I’m part of an effort to try to persuade; I think Trump will listen… It’s how far do you go, and how expensive will it be?”

“I’m certainly looking for doing something with SALT, but not excessive – finding the sweet spot,” Van Drew said. “And we have to work with everybody. The red states are concerned because they feel that the blue states – and they have a point – are not run well, and because they’re not run well their property taxes are high. All true. But we can’t just punish everybody who lives there. We have to find that sweet spot, that compromise.”

Van Drew added that he was encouraged by some of Trump’s other tax proposals, such as eliminating taxes on tips and on Social Security benefits.

“You’re taxed, and taxed, and taxed, and taxed, you finally retire, you’re not getting enough from Social Security, so you get a part-time job – and dammit, you’re taxed again. It really isn’t right,” Van Drew said. “I’d love to see it, if we can manage it. The president’s still working on it and thinking on it; we’ll have to see how it all washes out with [the Ways and Means Committee] and everybody else.”

Kean, who represents a high-tax district in Central Jersey, has focused heavily on the SALT deduction as well. The swing-seat congressman is part of a five-member bloc that has committed to fighting against any reconciliation package that doesn’t include SALT reform; he was also among a cohort of blue-state Republicans to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to talk about SALT earlier this month, a meeting he called “productive.”

And as a new member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over policies ranging from health care to green energy to consumer protection, Kean may have a front seat at many of Congress’s biggest reconciliation battles this year. (Smith and Van Drew are most heavily focused on their work on the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, respectively, two committees that will likely be less involved in reconciliation.)

Republicans have also discussed including border security and immigration provisions in their reconciliation package; in fact, one of the biggest ongoing debates is whether to lump different policy priorities together in one big bill, or separate them out into distinct packages. Regardless, both Smith and Van Drew, who have each called for substantially stricter border policies, indicated a broad openness to a number of different potential immigration provisions.

With only a tiny 220-215 majority in the House – functionally 217-215 for the next few months thanks to vacancies – Republicans can only afford to lose one or two votes from their own caucus before any reconciliation bill’s prospects start to get dicey. Democrats could step in to rescue the bill, but if past reconciliation processes are anything to go by, that may be unlikely; of the four reconciliation bills the House approved during Trump’s first term and Joe Biden’s presidency, all were passed without a single minority party vote.

Smith in particular knows well how much leverage each member of the majority party can have during reconciliation. During the first Trump presidency, Smith was one of 20 House Republicans to vote against Obamacare repeal, which passed the House only to die in the GOP-controlled Senate, and one of 13 Republicans to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed into law (and which implemented the SALT cap that Republicans may now try to roll back). Had House Republicans had as narrow a majority then as they do now, Smith’s “no” votes could have been decisive.

But Smith, who has become somewhat less of a maverick on big-ticket issues in recent years, didn’t sound like he was raring for a fight for this reconciliation package.

“I think we’ll get to a good place, I really do,” Smith said.

Van Drew said that he too has little interest in holding up whatever it is that his caucus intends to accomplish.

“Any good package I’ll work with,” he said. “I’m not one of these guys – I’ll only vote for this. You’re going to have to be flexible with this… Whatever we do in reconciliation, I hope we get a lot done, so we can really focus on some other things as well.”