Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Permanence Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I rise, unexpectedly, on tax day. You probably woke up on Monday morning this week thinking Tuesday was going to be tax day, as most of America did, but, lo and behold, when the IRS' payment system crashes, suddenly we are now deeming today tax day rather than yesterday. While it is a surprise to be speaking on tax day, that collapse of the website sort of makes my point.

I want to talk about the great successes that we have had working together, collaboratively, over the last 14 months to move the American Tax Code in the right direction, and then I want to talk about what we can do together to do even more.

You may have seen some of the headlines in the Washington, D.C., tax rags today, Mr. Speaker, folks talking about the House Ways and Means Committee and how we are prepared to begin to do more. The Senate may be a little bit reluctant to do more. At some point, it is going to require an outpouring of public support to do more.

Let me tell you what I mean by ``more.''

When we began the process of tax reform here in the House, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about tax reform first and tax cuts second, reform being that everyone knows that they have to pay taxes. Taxes are certain. But it doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't have to be an additional burden.

Writing the check is burdensome; figuring out how to calculate how much to write the check for doesn't have to be. But it has grown that way in this country, Mr. Speaker, and we set about trying to change that in the House.

Now, I have a bill in the House called H.R. 25. It is the Fair Tax Act. It would

actually take the American Tax Code and shift it, for the first time in 100 years, away from an income tax-based system and return it to the consumption tax-based system on which this country began.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you have looked at the numbers recently. We are the only OECD country that doesn't have a consumption tax.

As you know, the power to tax is a power to destroy. If we want to get rid of something like cigarettes, we tax them in the hopes that there will be less of it.

Well, by the same token, when we tax income, guess what. We send the incentive that there should be less of it. We tax productivity. The harder you work to feed your beautiful family, Mr. Speaker, the more that the American Government takes from you.

You look at these young people coming out of college. They are trying to save for their future. They are trying to pay back those student loans. They are trying to make it all work by themselves for the very first time. The harder they work, the more hours they put in, the more we decide we are going to take right off the top.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Now, the tax cuts that we passed in December, Mr. Speaker, as you know, lower the American tax burden for the first time in a long time. In fact, a poll out recently said that fewer Americans believe they are overtaxed today, matching record low levels.

I think that is a step in the right direction. I think that speaks to kind of the collective sigh of relief that you feel across the country among entrepreneurs and those who want to start their own business and families trying to put food on the table. I am glad that we have that collective sigh of relief, but can we do more?

Today, we were talking about reforming the IRS, Mr. Speaker. I have got a list here--H.R. 5444, H.R. 5445, H.R. 2901, H.R. 5440, H.R. 5438, H.R. 5446, H.R. 5437, H.R. 5439, H.R. 5443--all bills that this House has considered this week designed to make the IRS serve the American taxpayer better. That is a long list of bills, Mr. Speaker, and that is worth celebrating. We took a big step this week in trying to make the IRS more responsive to the American people.

Not to be a pessimist, Mr. Speaker, but when you have to share with this agency every penny you earn, everyplace that you earned it, share with them how you spent it, the places that you gave it, when you gave it, sometimes why you gave it, what you purchased with it, right on down the line, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that your wife may know less about your family finances than the IRS does. If not in your family, certainly in many families, we tell the IRS things we would not tell members of our family.

We place an incredible amount of power and responsibility in the IRS' hands. And I want to be clear: This isn't an IRS institutional problem. The IRS didn't ask for this authority. This is a 435-Members-of-the- U.S.-House problem. We put this authority in the IRS' hands. We gave them an untenable task of wielding this power without abuse. That is why you have almost a dozen bills, Mr. Speaker, today to reform them.

Making those reforms is important, but is there a better way? Do we have to have the IRS involved in every aspect of our financial life? I am here to tell you that the answer is no.

H.R. 25, the Fair Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, moves us to a consumption tax, which says that we are going to tax you based on what you spend, not on what you earn. So I no longer need to tell the IRS what I earned, where I earned it, and how I spent it.

When I get taxed on what I spend, I am not sending that information to the IRS. I am getting taxed while I am at the store. I am getting taxed at Home Depot. I am getting taxed at Kroger. I am getting taxed at Publix. I am getting taxed at Macy's. I am getting taxed on amazon.com.

When we tax based on what people consume instead of what they earn, we end that disincentive to earn, and we begin to ask that people ask more serious questions about what they purchase.

Mr. Speaker, today, as American workers are going off to produce high-quality American goods, they are doing so at a disadvantage. Most nations, as I mentioned earlier, have a consumption tax, which means that, when the Germans produce an automobile and they send it to America, they have a consumption tax--a value added tax, in their case--that had been taxed on that car that had been sold in Germany. Since they are shipping it to America, they remove that tax and send that car to America tax free. We pay taxes on it when we purchase it.

Not so when the American car goes to Germany. The big BMW plant in South Carolina producing BMWs, when that car is produced, all of the embedded taxation of the corporate taxes BMW is paying and the payroll taxes BMW workers are paying, all of those taxes are built into the price of that BMW. When we ship it out for sale to the rest of the world, the price of that car is higher because Americans built it.

That is just nonsense.

Why in the world have we chosen to disadvantage ourselves relative to the rest of the world?

Well, when you choose to have an income tax and when you choose to have a payroll tax, you then choose to bury those costs in the price of your goods and services. It is a competitive disadvantage of America.

I mentioned payroll taxes, Mr. Speaker. You may not know, but payroll taxes are the largest tax that 85 percent of American families pay. Let me say that again.

We just had this whole long debate over reforming the income tax system, and it was an important debate to have. We had this whole debate about how it is we can provide more money in workers' paychecks by changes to the income tax system. It was an important debate to have. But 85 percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes-- that FICA tax you see, it is 15.3 percent of everything that you earn-- pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

So the time is going to come that we are going to have to gather here, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber to have a debate about how we reform the payroll tax system.

The payroll tax system is very important. It funds Social Security and Medicare. We want those programs to be successful. We know that as we sit here today, the revenue streams are not sufficient to make those programs successful. So if you believe in those programs, we need to have those conversations today about the Fair Tax, Mr. Speaker, the only tax bill in Congress that examines the payroll tax as the lead reform mechanism of tax reform.

We went in and we changed the corporate tax system in the tax cuts bill last year, Mr. Speaker, and we did a good job there. We took it from being the absolute worst Tax Code on the planet in terms of competitiveness and we moved America to about the top five. That is good news. Not worst to first, but worst to top five. I will take it.

When Ronald Reagan and the Democrats did tax reform back in 1986, they then moved America from worst to first. In the intervening 30 years, the rest of the world caught up with America, surpassed America, moved us back into last place. We moved ourselves last December into the top five.

My question is, Mr. Speaker, when did it become an American value, when did American exceptionalism begin to be defined by being in the top five, one of the folks out in front?

My definition of American exceptionalism is being number one, being the very best, setting the standard, letting the rest of the world follow.

The Fair Tax encompasses that by recognizing that businesses don't pay taxes. They just collect taxes. They collect them from their employees in the form of lower wages, they collect them from their customers in the form of higher prices, they collect them from the owners of capital in the form of lower returns to pension plans for American retirees, but businesses don't pay taxes. There is no secret drawer that a business dips into to pay its tax bill. It is lower wages, higher prices, or lower rates of return.

Well, recognizing this, and we did a lot of recognizing of that during this tax reform debate, we have now lowered the corporate tax rate to the lowest rate in my lifetime.

The question is, now that we are seeing the benefits of that, we are seeing money plowed back into workers' paychecks, we are seeing wages rise--and we are not having the discussion of minimum wage here anymore, Mr. Speaker, because businesses across the country can't find enough employees, they are raising wages on their own, they are putting bonuses out there on their own. Those businesses have more money in their pockets and they are putting it in the pockets of their employees.

There is not a business in your district, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't recognize the most important asset that business has is a motivated and loyal workforce. Employees are the most valuable asset that a business has. Those employees are rewarded when the business succeeds.

Why is it that now that we are seeing that, now that we are recognizing that, we see the reality that when you put more money back in the business, that business puts more money back in a paycheck, why don't we go the rest of the way? Why don't we move America back from worst to first one more time, abolish that corporate income tax, recognize that businesses don't pay taxes, they just collect them from their employees?

That reduction of corporate income taxes so far, Mr. Speaker, has led to bonuses for more than 4 million American workers, wages rising across the board at the highest level in years, unemployment at a sustained level lower than ever before recorded.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code is one of those things that people can use to pick winners and losers, and an income Tax Code particularly lends itself to pick winners and losers.

The Fair Tax says let's not pick winners and losers; let's have one rate that everybody pays on everything that they buy. Let's recognize that consumption is a better form of taxation than income is, again, as the only OECD country that does not have a consumption tax, and let us recognize that there is even more economic growth that we can squeeze out of the American economy today.

You have seen the capital investment that comes from the immediate expensing that was included in the last tax bill, Mr. Speaker. Well, immediate expensing is the same as not taxing that investment at all. It is what I am saying. Instead of just being for some purchases, for some investments, it would be for all purchases, for all investments.

We gave businesses that benefit in December. Four million workers and counting have received bonuses, wages rising faster than they have in years.

What about repatriated earnings, Mr. Speaker? How are we advantaged as a Nation by trapping earnings overseas?

If a company can't bring its earnings back to America to invest in America, what is it going to do? If those earnings are trapped overseas, they are going to get invested overseas, they are going to build that next plant overseas, they are going to make that next purchase overseas. How in the world are we advantaged as a Nation by trapping earnings overseas?

Well, we recognized that we are not. We recognized that by lowering the repatriation rate, we have brought back trillions of dollars. That return to America is continuing, but we can do more. That corporate rate going to zero does more.

The Tax Code is the only regulatory action we take, Mr. Speaker, that disadvantages America relative to the rest of the world for no benefit whatsoever.

Let us concede that we have bills to pay as a Nation and we are going to raise the revenue to pay those bills.

Now, having conceded that we are going to raise the revenue to pay those bills, let's raise that revenue in the simplest, least economically destructive way possible: a consumption tax. Milton Friedman would tell it. If you don't believe Nobel laureate economists, you can look at State experiments across the country. If you don't believe those State experiments, you can look at changing tax codes in our neighboring countries around the world, our allies around the world.

We have a choice in how we collect revenue, and H.R. 25, the Fair Tax Act, is the most comprehensive recognition that we can do away with the income tax, we can repeal the 16th Amendment that even made the income tax possible in this country. We can return to a consumption tax so that we all have skin in the game in how this government is run and operated. We can ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare by changing the way we collect the revenue stream for those programs.

We can put more money in workers' pockets by eliminating the largest tax that 85 percent of American families pay in eliminating that FICA tax. We can put America back on top economically, as we tried to do in 1986, as we saw happen during the 1990s as a result of those Tax Code changes, and we can return America to being an exporter to the world, not just an importer from the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have that debate. If someone believes that disadvantaging the American worker is valuable in some way, let's talk about it. If someone sees a hidden benefit to making it harder for the rest of the world to buy American goods, let's talk about it and let me understand those benefits with you.

But if you share my vision of American exceptionalism, that being in the top five isn't good enough, that being number one, being the leader, being the definer of success is the only thing that is going to be good enough for the families that each and every one of us represent, then go back and look at H.R. 25 one more time.

I understand, having just passed tax reform, the largest tax reform in a generation, folks wonder if we are able to do even more. We can.

I understand that having this tax day to be the very last tax day that any American family has to deal with the old, complicated code, folks wonder, can we do even better for next tax year. We have already done better for next tax year, Mr. Speaker, but we can do even more.

Take a look at the Fair Tax. Dozens upon dozens of your colleagues have already recognized its merits. Dozens upon dozens of your colleagues have already recognized our opportunity to stop fighting the economic battle with one arm tied behind the American worker's back.

I celebrate the success that we achieved together, Mr. Speaker. I celebrate the coming together in the name of making a better economy possible for American workers and their families. Let's take that success and let's build on that success, and let's not have this be the last tax day that we celebrate.

Let's celebrate today that we will never have to deal with the old Tax Code again, and let's anticipate that day where we will never even have tax day again, because in the absence of an income tax, the American family need never deal with the IRS again.

Let's eliminate April 15 as tax day. Let's make it just another beautiful spring day. Let's relieve the American family of the burden of complying with the Tax Code. Let's free the American family and American businesses to do what is in their own family's and their own business' best interest.

Make tax day just another day, Mr. Speaker. Support the Fair Tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 831 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 831, providing for consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act; and H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.

The rule provides for consideration of these measures under a closed rule. Both of these pieces of legislation were introduced with bipartisan cosponsors, and both were passed out of the Ways and Means Committee with unanimous support on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was not only tax day, but it was also the last time the American people had to file their taxes under an outdated and antiquated system. Thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by President Trump, Americans have much to look forward to: a simplified tax system, lower rates, a doubled child tax credit to help everyday families, a doubling of the standard deduction, and the freedom to buy the healthcare plan that is right for their families rather than be forced to buy government-mandated health insurance.

As these reforms continue to be implemented, and Americans across the country have begun to see their paychecks grow and small businesses begin to move forward with less regulatory burden, a bipartisan effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to modernize and reform the Internal Revenue Service has arisen. The goal is to redesign the IRS into a modern, 21st century agency focused on the ``taxpayers first'' service--reining in IRS abuses, protecting American taxpayers from fraud, and fairly and efficiently resolving disputes within the agency.

H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, demonstrates a bipartisan, comprehensive effort to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service. This legislation makes numerous changes to reorganize the agency in an attempt to focus its efforts on customer service. It creates an independent appeals process to improve dispute resolutions and requires the IRS to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to improve its customer service strategy. It requires the

agency to maintain the IRS Free File Program, equipping low- and middle-income Americans with free individual tax preparation and electronic filing services.

This legislation also requires the IRS to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity, and better meet the needs of taxpayers. By ensuring the agency sends notice to the actual taxpayer before contacting friends, neighbors, or clients when conducting an audit, we can ensure Americans receive fair notice and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the mission statement of the IRS is to provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, the IRS fails to provide the quality customer service they claim to strive for.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported in 2015 that the IRS had no strategy in place to define what quality and customer service should look like, nor did the agency have any plans to develop one. This is unacceptable, so I am pleased that the Taxpayer First Act requires the IRS to work to fulfill their mission statement.

The 21st Century IRS Act similarly seeks to modernize the IRS by specifically focusing on improving cybersecurity and taxpayer identity protection as well as reforming the information technology systems within the agency. The IRS relies heavily on an aging, antiquated IT infrastructure to administer the tax system. This infrastructure, some of which dates back to the 1960s, is unreliable and is not keeping up.

As we just saw yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the web page for paying tax bills using personal bank accounts crashed, leading to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin having to provide Americans with an extra day to file their returns. We must bring the IRS's infrastructure into the 21st century in order to prevent negative impacts on taxpayers seeking to comply with their tax responsibilities as we witnessed yesterday.

Unfortunately, these potential threats can include much more serious threats as well, including potential cyber attacks and fraud schemes that seek to exploit stolen taxpayer information.

The 21st Century IRS Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to work collaboratively with the public and private sectors to protect taxpayers from identity theft tax refund fraud. This legislation also requires the Secretary to submit a written report to Congress describing how the IRS can utilize new payment platforms to increase the number of tax refunds paid by electronic funds transfers, thereby streamlining the final leg of the filing process for taxpayers.

It provides for further recommendations regarding methods to prevent identity theft and refund fraud and requires that State, local, or Federal agencies conduct on-site reviews every 3 years of all contractors or other agents receiving Federal returns and return information.

These reforms are common sense and will prevent frustrating, prolonged interactions with the IRS that could be much more easily and seamlessly resolved online.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward and bipartisan rule, allowing for consideration of two bills that will require the Internal Revenue Service to put customer service needs of the American taxpayer first, and to reform, modernize, and improve the agency's infrastructure.

The IRS must prioritize cybersecurity and taxpayer identity theft protections. The underlying bills in this rule will do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation to continue our historic efforts to reform our Nation's tax system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the Rules Committee, and what we witnessed Monday was an amazing thing, coming together in a bipartisan fashion on some very important bills to bring reform to the Internal Revenue Service.

And I might respond to the gentleman's comments.

It was a very open process through the Ways and Means Committee. It was, as far as I recall, at least a 3-year process, working bipartisanly, very cooperatively, in a comprehensive fashion in order to get the work done that was brought together and culminated with the work that we see here today.

So, as far as an open process, I don't know what could have been more open. It was one that we can be proud of, one that we should see more of in this institution, frankly, and I am very proud that we are able to be here today, following a long history of using the closed rule process when we are considering these kinds of bills as it pertains to revenue.

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

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

The Ways and Means Committee put out a discussion draft on March 26 entitled, ``The Taxpayer First Act.'' The committee provided 2 weeks to collect input from Members, stakeholder groups, and the public. I would say to my good friends across the aisle that there were a number of substantive comments received, and my understanding is the committee considered them prior to introducing this bill that we have today.

So I would say let's honor that work. Let's move forward with this important piece of legislation, and I urge support of the rule.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the bipartisan effort in this bill is reflected in a very, very good way, and I urge respecting that process, respecting the comprehensive, collaborative work that was done on this bill, and I urge support of the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the many groups that are supporting H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as the group supporting H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.

For the Taxpayer First Act, the Americans for Tax Reform, the Coalition for Effective and Efficient Tax Administration, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the App Association support the Taxpayer First Act.

As far as the 21st Century Act, H.R. 5445, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Electronic Transactions Association, the MarketPlace Lending Association, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, FreedomWorks, the Institute for Policy Innovation, 60 Plus Association, the Institute for Liberty, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Less Government, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council all join us in supporting not only the underlying rule, but the underlying legislation, as I would urge my colleagues to do.

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come together to work on the important issues covered in both of these underlying bills. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.

The IRS currently lacks a comprehensive customer service strategy, nor does it have any system in place to measure metrics and benchmarks for success within customer service. Additionally, the IRS has not undergone organizational restructuring in the last 20 years.

H.R. 5444 requires the agency to develop a comprehensive strategy for customer service and to submit such plan to Congress no later than 1 year after the enactment of this legislation. It provides for the equitable treatment of every American taxpayer, including ensuring proper notice when the IRS seeks further information from an individual.

Mr. Speaker, the IRS spends $2.4 billion, annually, on information technology, technology that, in some cases, dates back, I understand, to the 1960s. The agency struggles with undertaking and completing large IT modernization efforts to update its legacy systems, which, therefore, can put American taxpayers in a frustrating or even dangerous position.

With the rise of tax refund fraud, a modern IT system must be enacted to ensure taxpayers can successfully comply with their tax requirements. H.R. 5445 modernizes and improves the ease and efficiency of the taxpayer experience when filing taxes, retrieving information, resolving issues, and making payments.

This legislation includes a number of provisions to strengthen the IRS' ability to proactively combat identity theft, tax refund fraud, and ensures IRS accountability for secure online taxpayer processes.

In light of the historic tax reform legislation initiated by this representative body, the people's House, and signed into law by the President, President Trump, just last year, it is vital the Internal Revenue Service undertake its own important reforms.

No one enjoys receiving an envelope stamped ``Internal Revenue Service.'' Far too often, taxpayers find the IRS to be inaccessible, intimidating, and unaccountable. American taxpayers deserve a robust and efficient agency with important oversight protections and modernized systems to keep their private information protected.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favor of this bipartisan rule, and I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 831, and both of the underlying bipartisan bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise and want to make comments actually echoing a lot of the comments that were made already.

The gentleman from Massachusetts talked about this needing to be a bipartisan bill, and I agree. The gentleman from New Jersey talked about Hurricane Sandy tax relief, and I agree. The gentleman from Florida talked about the need to ensure that we are responding quickly and appropriately in response to the devastating disasters that have affected his State of Florida and the State of Texas. I also support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's comments regarding a short-term reauthorization to the FAA so we can continue to move forward on reform.

But you may be wondering why, Mr. Speaker, groups like the Association of State Floodplain Managers and the Consumer Federation of America have expressed opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

Association of State

Floodplain Managers, Inc.,

September 24, 2017.

Re Private flood insurance in H.R. 3823, Disaster Tax Relief

and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017.

Dear Leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives: Early

this week, the House will consider legislation promoting

development of private flood insurance as part of a bill to

reauthorize the FAA for 6 months and provide hurricane tax

relief. The bill is scheduled to be taken up under suspension

this week. ASFPM strongly objects to consideration of private

flood outside the reauthorization of the NFIP. The proposed

bill does not insert HR 2901 from the 114th Congress as

mentioned in press reports, but inserts HR 1422, the Ross-

Castor bill from the 115th Congress as Title 4, with

provisions that as written could substantially weaken and

undermine the critical functioning of the National Flood

Insurance Program,. The NFIP not only provides flood

insurance, but is a comprehensive flood risk management

program.

Although we understand the potential benefits of more flood

insurance options, we point out that the private market has

been readily expanding since Biggert-Waters 2012 was passed

authorizing private flood insurance. ASFPM cannot support

authorization for private flood insurance as written in HR

1422. The temporary extension and reauthorization of the NFIP

expires on 8 Dec 2017, giving Congress ample time to consider

the full scope of the NFIP, into which private flood must

integrate, without causing irreparable damage to the other 3

fundamental elements of this comprehensive flood risk

management program. Those are floodplain mapping,

implementation of local floodplain ordinances to protect new

development, and hazard mitigation grants to reduce damage

and loss of life from flooding.

ASFPM has stated that three modifications of that HR 1422

language must be made to ensure continuity of the

comprehensive flood risk reduction aspects of the NFIP that

exist today. A federal policy fee on all NFIP policies pays

for almost half the cost of floodplain mapping and all of the

costs of floodplain management including technical assistance

to over 22,000 communities that have joined the NFIP. Hazard

mitigation grants are funded by premium income to the

program. None of these functions are provided by private

flood insurance policies.

Yet private insurance companies acknowledge that mapping

(i.e. identification of flood risk areas and areas of

mandatory purchase of flood insurance) and floodplain

management (i.e. reduced risk due to local requirements for

hazard-resistant construction) help them to target their

marketing and to price premiums lower where floodplain

ordinances exist.

First, private policies must also carry the federal policy

user fee to support the mapping and floodplain management

functions. Private flood policy holders, private insurance

companies, as well as the NFIP and its policy holders,

benefit from these functions by identifying at-risk areas,

ensuring building construction standards which facilitate

lower flood insurance premiums, and targeting areas and

structures which could benefit from mitigation actions

leading to lower premiums. As policies migrate to the private

sector, millions of dollars in revenue to support those

floodplain management and mapping functions will be lost

unless there is an equivalent policy user fee on private

policies.

Second, private policies to satisfy the mandatory purchase

requirement for properties in floodplains must only be sold

in communities that participate in the NFIP (meaning

they have adopted floodplain management ordinances to guide

safer development). In smaller communities with only a

handful of properties required to purchase flood insurance,

if that requirement can be met with private policies, those

communities may drop out of the NFIP and no longer maintain

floodplain management ordinances to reduce future losses.

This could result in lack of abililty to reduce future flood

losses and in taxpayers picking up disaster costs.

Third, several provisions of the existing definition of

private flood insurance must be retained. The Biggert-Waters

2012 legislation (42 USC 4012a(b)(7)) defines private flood

insurance, among other things, as providing coverage ``at

least as broad as'' that provided by the NFIP. The language

provides consumer protections to ensure policies would not

have excessive deductibles, exclusions, or eliminate some

essential coverages like Increased Cost of Compliance, which

provides assistance to policyholders to rebuild in a manner

that reduces flood damage in the future. Without these

important provisions in place, policyholders could face

unaffordable deductibles when they have a claim; communities

would find it much harder to help homeowners become eligible

for mitigation funding; and there would be a greater chance

that claim payments would not be applied to building repairs

resulting in increased community blight. ASFPM further notes

that with this language in place, the private market has

already been growing. The private flood insurance bill

strikes this language.

The nation's floodplain managers strongly urge adoption of

these elements if private flood language is added to the

House NFIP reauthorization bill. This would preserve the

flood risk mapping and floodplain management functions that

the NFIP provides and would protect consumers from purchasing

low-cost policies that provide less than adequate coverage

and/or higher deductibles they could not pay. This would not

happen if insureds had an NFIP policy.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and

its 36 chapters represent more than 17,000 state and local

officials, as well as other professionals engaged in all

aspects of floodplain management and flood hazard mitigation

including management of local floodplain ordinances, flood

risk mapping, engineering, planning, community development,

hydrology, forecasting, emergency response, water resources

development and flood insurance. All ASFPM members are

concerned with reducing our nation's flood-related losses.

Again we urge you to oppose inclusion of these ill-advised

private flood provisions outside of the context of

comprehensive NFIP reauthorization legislation. The

suspension package makes it impossible to properly address

these issues. Thank you for seriously considering these

recommendations from the Association of State Floodplain

Managers.

Very sincerely,

Chad Berginnis,

ASFPM Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, extraneous provisions on flood insurance that should not be pasted into this legislation were included. These provisions actually undermine the very solvency of the program. They are establishing a private market at a time when the National Flood Insurance Program--the Federal program--is going to need the resources to pay claims. Establishing a private market within 60 days is going to divert resources from the Federal program to private insurers. It is going to divert these dollars to where they don't have the resources to make the payments.

Private insurance companies are already involved in flood insurance, and once we authorize them to step into these markets, they are going to be able to cherry-pick low- and moderate-risk policies, leaving the National Flood Insurance Program with only high-risk policies, leaving them with the burden of flood mapping and leaving them with the burden of a $24.6 billion debt. I don't understand how the program is going to have the resources to pay the claims it underwrites.

Next, Mr. Speaker, one of the other big problems we have is that this shows floods in Texas, floods in Louisiana, and gutting homes in Louisiana here and in Texas there.

These were both 1,000-year flood events. I don't understand the difference on why we choose these folks get tax relief and these don't. We introduced nearly identical legislation to address this.

We shouldn't be discriminating against folks in New Jersey and New York and Louisiana in exchange for the others.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3823) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to provide disaster tax relief, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, since Hurricane Irma hit south Florida earlier this month, my staff and I have been on the ground in the Florida Keys and South Dade helping our district with immediate recovery efforts and listening to what our constituents need going forward.

In the lower and middle Florida Keys, it is hard to find someone who hasn't been affected financially by this storm's devastation. From restaurant workers who have been without a paycheck to fishermen whose boats or traps were damaged, small businesses and the families that depend on them are really struggling.

In South Dade, crops and agricultural structures critical to daily operations were devastated by wind. Some small farms that were already struggling to make ends meet have now exhausted their cash on hand to pay for cleanup, leaving them little to pay workers or keep up with their planting schedule.

Mr. Speaker, my district and similar communities throughout Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands need relief, and this bill is a great start.

Through the business tax credit for wages, small-business owners like Owen, a lobster and crab fisherman whose traps in the middle Keys were destroyed by Hurricane Irma, will be able to claim a tax credit for 40 percent of employee wages. That is money Owen can use to get his employees back to work as soon as possible.

The bill will also allow taxpayers to refer to earned income from the immediately preceding year for purposes of determining the earned income tax credit. That is over 415,000 hurricane survivors in Miami- Dade, and nearly 7,500 in Monroe County, who will be able to keep more of their paycheck when the time comes to pay taxes next year.

We are also going to make it easier for individuals and businesses, like farmers struggling in South Dade and fishermen in the Keys, to deduct more of the costs from the extensive property damage these storms left behind.

This legislation would also give anyone struggling with initial recovery immediate access to their retirement savings, without penalties, so they can make ends meet and take care of their families.

Lastly, this legislation will lift caps on charitable giving to qualified hurricane relief organizations, encouraging more American businesses and individuals to continue generously supporting their fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Americans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico need Congress to act. My constituents and those in other communities like my district don't have time to wait. They certainly don't have time to play political games. The Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017 will give them the means to recover faster and rebuild their communities better and stronger than before. This tax relief package we are considering deserves bipartisan support from my colleagues.

I thank Chairman Brady and the Ways and Means Committee for allowing me to shape this legislation for the benefit of south Florida residents, especially those in Monroe County who were hardest hit by Hurricane Irma. I hope we can get this done today.

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

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I want to first convey my gratitude to the gentleman from Massachusetts because, indeed, the first day I returned after being back home helping my community recover, the gentleman expressed his disposition to work together. That really meant a lot to me, and I know it meant a lot to all of our colleagues who represent areas that were hit hard by the storm. We should work more closely together. We can always do better. However, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of provisions in this legislation that are supported by Members of both parties, and there are millions of Americans who are suffering, especially in south Florida and especially in Puerto Rico that was hit hard by Maria just a few days ago, and they are counting on us to deliver something. We can always do more later, but this is a good package that will help people get back up on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, no one was laughing at anything that the gentleman said. We were listening intently.

The reason that we are all here is because the people of Florida, the people of Texas, the people of Louisiana, the people of Puerto Rico, and the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands need our help. They were hit in the last few weeks, and they need our help. There are people struggling in all of these communities.

Is this bill perfect?

No. I have never seen one.

Can we do more?

Yes. We must do more, but this is an important first step.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the distinguished chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Brady and the Ways and Means Committee staff for their work on this legislation. It has been a tough couple weeks in the State of Florida, especially down in my community. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Neal. As I said earlier, when I came back here, the first conversation we had was about helping south Florida, and he said he was willing and certainly able to do it.

Here today, we are trying to take that first step to help the people of Florida, to help the people of Texas, of Louisiana, of the Virgin Islands, of Puerto Rico. But as often happens in the House, if something isn't perfect, then we get nothing. That is wrong. That is wrong, because there are people out there who need the help, people who don't have a roof, people who don't have a home, people who have been without power.

I visited the Marathon Emergency Operations Center, Mr. Speaker. It was replete with people buzzing, everyone working hard, full of energy, even though they hadn't slept in days. The emergency operations manager there told me that a third of the employees there who were helping their fellow residents, conchs in the Florida Keys, had lost their homes.

This is about them, and we can help improve their lives today, and we can work together to do more later, and we should. But why should the perfect be the enemy of the good? Why, when we have the opportunity to help people, because some think we should be doing even more, we are going to give them absolutely nothing? I think that is a major mistake, and it sends the wrong message.

Throughout this debate, we have seen everything from posturing to name calling, and we wonder why so many Americans reject this institution and are disappointed by it. We have to do better, and we can do better. It would send a strong message if we all voted for this legislation to take this first step to helping the people of the Florida Keys, of south Florida, of Texas, of Louisiana, of the U.S. Virgin Islands, of Puerto Rico, help them get back up on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, this is very important, and on behalf of my community and a lot of people who have, quite frankly, lost their lives, I ask all of my colleagues to join together and to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, for one simple reason. This is an anemic response to these disasters, whether they occur on the mainland of the United States or within American possessions.

This should have been done on Friday afternoon with the two parties working together. Instead, once again, this was put together by one party, with minimal input from our side. These are all

members of the American family that have been impacted by what has happened with this terrible weather.

The chance here for us to work together to make this an expanded package, where we could be talking about a host of opportunities for these folks who have been put in such a precarious situation, is now being missed. There are 90 Members of this Congress who actually voted against direct aid in the past for relief for members of the American family, where we should have taken the position here, clearly: Let's try to figure out what we can do for a robust tax package, what we can do for immediate aid, and highlight the role that FEMA plays. And I certainly have expressed to Mr. Curbelo time and again I am there on board. I just think this needs to be more, and I think that is the position that we are offering today.

Furthermore, a partisan position had to be taken in terms of many priorities that we should have been consulted on, and even those could have been turned into bipartisan moments. I support the disaster relief that is in this bill, but it is clear that the package is woefully inadequate. I would hope that we could work together on these provisions.

The disaster relief package included in this bill does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in the American communities that include Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Without the fix that we want on this side, the effect of lost revenue is going to mean that money is lost that otherwise would be needed for normal operations and the response effort. It is going to take years to adequately respond to what has happened and the devastation that these folks are up against. We need to be sitting here, both parties working together, to say: They are all members of the American family. Let's get it done.

I consider this a missed opportunity, and I hope that we can do more in the next few days to get back on track to help them bounce back from these, indeed, tragedies. We should be sitting down here in the next 48 hours and putting together a massive package of relief for these States and for these possessions and making sure that they have what is necessary, rather than doing a piecemeal fix on what is sure to be a very tormented time for members of these communities and these States and these possessions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a sufficient opportunity here going forward, as the previous gentlemen has spoken, to discuss the whole issue of flood insurance. I just don't think this is the moment to be discussing the flood insurance initiatives. Instead, I think that ought to be subject to a full-throttled debate in this

institution about getting those things done. This is not, I think, the appropriate forum for accomplishing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the gentleman from California that when you talk about graduate medical education, believe me, in Massachusetts, we are for graduate medical education. Be assured of that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we all support reauthorization of the FAA. What has happened here again is a breakdown in the conversation that used to meld this institution together.

There was a chance on Friday for Republicans to consult with us in the minority, put together a bipartisan package of many very important provisions that are important to Mr. Curbelo, important to certainly Texas, important to the Virgin Islands. It is certainly important to Puerto Rico.

Let me give you a quick example of how this institution used to work. We used to call this the national principle. The national principle essentially said if there was an earthquake in California, we all rose to the support of California. If there were forest fires in Alabama, which there were, we would all come to the aid of the people of Alabama. If there was a horrific, torrential downpour in Texas, we simply said: We don't ask if it is a red State or a blue State, or if they are Libertarians or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans. We said: They are members of the American family. We said: Do what has to be done and then send us the bill. We believe that there will be ample opportunity to debate and discuss the size of the portionality at that moment.

Instead, where we had this opportunity right here to provide a robust package to the people of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, we decide to come back with an anemic proposal.

We are coming up short on our responsibility. We had a tornado in my hometown 5 years ago. Those Federal employees did a spectacular job everywhere in eight communities, and nobody said: Too much government. They said: Let's fix this for, again, the American family to get this straightened out.

I have said to Mr. Curbelo, and I will repeat it, we will put up 195 Democrats immediately for a bigger package for the people of Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, not to piecemeal this together.

By the way, let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for those of us from the Northeast, the idea that 90 Members of this institution voted against direct relief just a couple of weeks ago looking for a pay-for, I wonder if they are going to use that same application of consistency when we get to the tax proposals that are about to consume our time.

We want to provide adequate relief to these families and the communities that need it. We could do this in the next 48 hours without any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, because this is not big enough and not supportive enough of the American family, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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