To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the immediate sale of seized property by the Secretary of the Treasury to perishable goods.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5446, and I thank Mr. Ferguson for working with our office to bring this bill to committee and here to the floor as well. And I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) for managing the time on this bill. This may be one of the last things she gets to do here on the House floor, and I just want to thank her for her friendship throughout the years, as well, and working in a bipartisan way with us on occasion.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, this is a targeted bill to address the overzealous enforcement of existing law. These changes are needed because, as Mr. Ferguson will point out as well, we have found ourselves in an environment where small-business owners have seen their property and products taken and sold within 24 hours.

Take, for example, as was mentioned by Ms. Jenkins, the 2015 IRS raid of Mii's Bridal and Tuxedo shop in Garland, Texas. Claiming the owners owed back taxes, the IRS agents seized $17,000 in cash and $650,000 in wedding dresses and equipment, like sewing machines. The agents then immediately auctioned off those items, even though their tax dispute was not settled and has not been contested.

The agency argued the expedited procedures were needed because they said the dresses, as was mentioned, were perishable goods. These were not oranges or grapefruits, they were not apples or eggs, they were dresses.

By invoking the word ``perishable,'' the IRS didn't have to post advance public notice of the auction or wait at least 10 days for sunlight to come in before selling the goods, as is normally required.

To say this is wrong is an understatement. Clothing, as we all know, is not really perishable. It will decay over time and when it is worn, but left to its own, it doesn't decay. It is not perishable.

And destroying an immigrant-owned business--an immigrant-owned business--within hours, that took decades to build, should never have happened in the first place.

How the IRS used civil asset forfeiture in this case goes against a bedrock principle of our country, of the

United States--the principle of due process.

In this case, the IRS acted without proper notice and outside the intent of the law. They seized property and sold it without knowing its true cost or its value.

Civil asset forfeiture is a tool that the IRS and other law enforcement agencies use to go after ill-gotten funds from human traffickers, terrorists, and other serious criminal activity.

Sometimes it is a necessary mechanism. I think we all recognize that. But only when used correctly and fairly.

Seizing the goods of a small immigrant-owned business and selling them immediately at auction under the false premise that they were perishable goods is a clear example of how the law should not be used.

Passage of this measure will ensure that abuses like this never happen again. I urge swift passage of this bill to help us take at least some steps to address the abusive flaws in the civil asset forfeiture procedure and give at least this one company some modicum of justice.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me thank Mr. Ferguson, as well as Ms. Jenkins, for bringing this bill to the floor.

I don't want anyone who may be watching this on C-SPAN and may be just waking up, turning on the television, and looking at the incredible bipartisanship that is happening here today to think they died and have gone to bipartisan heaven.

Although much of the work that we are doing today is bipartisan in nature, it really is drastically different than the way in which the Committee on Ways and Means has conducted business in the most recent past in connection with the passage of the Republican tax bill. Democrats have called that a tax scam bill.

It had absolutely no input from the Democratic side of the aisle, certainly here in the House of Representatives, in the committee, or here on the floor. Not reflective of any of the Democratic principles or values in that bill and its passage.

And as much as we are working in a very bipartisan way, this is not a reflection of my good friend Ms. Jenkins, but more a reflection, I think, of the leadership of the Republican Conference in ramming a bill through the committee without proper hearings. Not having a single Democratic amendment in that process spoke very ill of the process itself.

Nobody cares about how sausage gets made. We know that. Nobody cares how legislation gets made. Nobod cares about how sausage gets made until they taste it and it doesn't taste good. And I think that is what is happening right now with the American people.

This tax bill is falling flat on its face. This tax scam bill is falling flat on its face because it is not helping the people it was purported to be helping in the first place. The greatest bait-and- switch probably in the history of our country went on in terms of what the President talked about, the people he was going to help, the middle class and hardworking people, and instead it all basically went to the wealthiest 1 percent and the wealthiest multinational corporations in the history of mankind.

They got permanent tax relief, and the middle class and working men and women in this country got bupkis. All right? And the reality is they know what happened here. They know that 83 percent of that bill went to the wealthiest 1 percent and 17 percent to working men and women and working poor people.

That is just obscene. That is not reflective of who we are as a nation or as a country or as a people, yet that is what happened, and in no small part because it was done in such a partisan way. The bill had not a single hearing within the committee and was brought to the floor all to meet a deadline of passing it before the Christmas and Hanukkah break. That was the only goal, so that my Republican colleagues could say they had achieved something, even if it was ill conceived and passed with rushed judgment.

And now we know about all the problems with the bill and all the fixes that have to take place; things that maybe could have been worked out had there been a more open process and more deliberative process and the inclusion of Democrats in that process. Just maybe.

So I don't want anyone, again, to be watching C-SPAN or maybe turning on the news tonight and learning about all the bipartisanship that is happening here on the House floor--and it is good; these are good bills that we are working on together--and say: Did I die and something happened? Has the world been righted? Am I missing something?

I want them to know: No. You are not missing anything.

That tax scam bill did pass, and it did go toward helping the wealthiest 1 percent and the richest multinational corporations in the history of the world, and the little guy is not getting very much at all. That is still the case. That hasn't changed. And it is sad, but it is true.

I, once again, want to thank the gentlewoman for her efforts in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. But let it be known that this is more of an aberration and not the norm in terms of how the committee has been conducting business, nor has the House of Representatives been conducting business in the most recent past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5444 and H.R. 5445. I support the underlying bills, but the problem is these rules don't allow any amendments.

We suggest an open process. I offered three amendments myself to these bills. My colleague Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to improve the bill. Unfortunately, we have been denied a vote, and instead this body is having a debate on, frankly, issues, just like yesterday, there doesn't even need to be that much debate on. I would think these bills, like the one yesterday, could have been put on something called the suspension calendar, which means they are not too controversial.

Usually the reason we do a rule is we allow amendments. That is why we do that, and yet all the amendments that were offered were rejected. So we are kind of drawing out the time it takes to pass these bipartisan bills instead of spending the time on issues that the American public want us to address.

Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, are clamoring for debate around what is called an AUMF, an authorized use of military force, bill to address the authority of the President with regard to Syria, with regard to ISIS and other operations.

We are now 4 months into 2018. The House still has not considered a bill to protect our Dreamers, our young aspiring Americans.

So inaction, inaction, inaction. And even where we are moving forward with a bipartisan bill, we are shutting out ideas from Republicans and Democrats that could actually make the bill better.

I, as I mentioned, offered a couple of those to this bill, and the majority blocked those amendments on a party-line vote. One of my amendments would have provided clarity to consumers and the IRS around providing a window for immunity on filings for use of cryptocurrency, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Schweikert. Another amendment would have provided tax relief for kombucha manufacturers, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Tipton. Another would have eased tax burdens on small businesses in States that have legalized marijuana.

All three have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee could have granted the necessary waivers, as they do on many amendments when they choose to, and allowed them.

Mr. Sherman's amendment was actually germane to the underlying bill. There wouldn't have needed to be any additional waivers that were granted. We simply could have advanced it to the floor to debate.

So, again, these bills are largely noncontroversial. What is controversial is why won't the Republican leadership allow Democrats and Republicans to amend and improve these bills? And two, why we are wiling away our time on bills that we could have done Monday on a suspension voice vote instead of really working on a bipartisan Authorization for Use of Military Force or the other prescient issues our country faces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), whose amendment was rejected in a party-line vote by the Rules Committee and not even allowed to be debated for a moment on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on tax day, the White House made an announcement about President Trump's taxes, but it wasn't the announcement that Americans were waiting for.

Instead of releasing his returns, President Trump was actually just requesting an extension to file his 2017 income tax return, which still would not be made public if or when he files it. It is a good reminder that President Trump has broken with decades of tradition when, as a Presidential candidate, he did not disclose his tax returns.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, which would require Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), our final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask is the gentleman prepared to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to defeat the previous question and call up a bill to increase transparency with regard to the President. We also have an opportunity to reject a rule that excludes good ideas, where Members of Congress, in good faith, offered amendments to improve the bill and they were denied.

Of course, the two underlying bills are fine bills. What is broken is the process, a process that doesn't allow a meaningful floor debate on improvements to a bill and a process that doesn't allow any floor time for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or addressing the needs of our Dreamers. Unfortunately, these bills are brought to the floor under a closed rule.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule for three reasons:

First, it is a closed rule. You should always vote against a closed rule.

But second, it is the embodiment of a pernicious tradition of always having closed rules on tax bills. That is outrageous. Why would we not apply that to everything that Congress deals with?

We are told: Well, if we don't have a closed rule, we have to have an open rule; we don't want an open rule on a tax bill.

You could have a structured rule. You could have germane amendments.

What does a closed rule on every tax bill mean? It means that over 400 of us can never offer an amendment about taxation, and it also means that, if an amendment is hotly debated in the Ways and Means Committee and prevails or is defeated by one vote, then the entire House cannot chime in on that issue. The second reason to vote against this rule is to break this ironclad tradition of closed rules on tax bills.

There is a third reason, and that is, my amendment to strike section 202 was not allowed. I am an old CPA. I headed the second largest tax agency in this country. I am very interested in easing the burden on taxpayers. This bill generally does that. But section 202 is designed-- doesn't actually do this, but it pushes in the direction of locking in the free file system. That is a contract that the IRS has with TurboTax and H&R Block that is supposed to allow everyone with an income of under $66,000 to file for free. But with TurboTax, you have to have an income under $33,000; with H&R Block, you have to be under 50.

I, personally, resent that.

The Free File Program isn't free even if you don't have to pay for the software because you have got to gather your 1099, your INT, your 1099-DIV, and your W-2, and you have to correctly interpret that and enter it into the system.

There is a better system. It is called the pre-prepared tax system. It is being used in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Japan, Chile, and the United Kingdom, not to mention Norway and Finland. The IRS would send you the return. It is already filled out. They already have all the information from your 1099s and your W-2s. You could just hit ``yes'' or you could make changes there on the screen, or you could throw away the IRS' version, go get TurboTax, go to H&R Block, and fill out your own return the way you do it now.

This provision, section 202, pushes the IRS against going to the pre- prepared return system, a better system, a system that was explored in 1998 by a Republican Congress, and the IRS was told to develop that system by 2008. The IRS never did.

So there should be an amendment to strike section 202 and push the IRS toward a pre-prepared return system where you could literally be done with your tax return in 1 minute and not have to keep track of all these pieces of paper and try to interpret them.

There is a solution because this bill will pass. This bill should pass. All the other provisions are pretty good.

You can cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act. By doing that, you would override section 202, tell the IRS that they have to go to a pre-prepared return system.

We would catch up with Spain and Norway and Denmark and Japan and really have a tax system where you don't have to keep track of all the little pieces of paper that the IRS already has, and you wouldn't have to interpret them and figure out where to put them in the complicated software when the IRS already knows how to do that.

I realize that TurboTax and H&R Block might lose some money, but this is a chance for taxpayers around the country to have an easy system.

If you can't vote against the rule--and I wouldn't vote against the bill--cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will point out, like every committee, you can always send a letter to any committee I serve on or the Ways and Means Committee. But to take away from Members their right to come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote is to relegate us to the same position as all 320 million Americans, all of whom can send a letter to the Ways and Means Committee.

I will also point out that the act I talked about, the Tax Filing Simplification Act, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, has a number of cosponsors, and has never received a hearing or half a hearing or any discussion.

So to say that the Ways and Means Committee will accept our letters and, therefore, we should have closed rules on tax bills, apply that to every other issue we have--every committee in this House will accept a letter from any other Member, let alone any constituent--means we really want closed rules on everything.