Glenn Grothman

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Bilirakis' bill, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act.

It is the responsibility of Congress to make sure every vehicle purchased has the minimum amount of standard equipment expected. Can you imagine spending $60,000 on a new car and not getting AM radio? Why don't you just take the transmission too.

In my media market, no AM radio means no sixties music, no Dave Ramsey, and no Brewers game, not to mention we recently had a big tornado, and I think one of the reasons nobody died is everybody got in their basement because they heard of the danger on AM radio. They expect me to sit at home and wait for the Brewers game to end before I get in the car? That is ridiculous.

I had a staffer buy a fancy European model and was shocked to find out it had no AM radio.

Quick, pass this bill, rush it to the Senate and President Trump. I want to hear The Dave Clark Five, The Beach Boys, and The Supremes if I buy a new car.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Steube for drafting this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9498, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act.

Taxpayers deserve a government that respects their rights, treats them fairly, and listens when legitimate concerns arise. When dealing with the IRS, families and small businesses should have confidence that their interests are being heard.

It is not uncommon, unfortunately, that when you are dealing with the IRS, Mr. Speaker, and you think you have a problem, if you go to a lawyer, that lawyer right off the top is going to maybe even charge you more money than the amount that is being disputed.

For a family or small business in Wisconsin, dealing with the IRS can be intimidating. The tax code is too complicated, professional assistance can be expensive, and resolving a dispute can take considerable time. These are people who have their own businesses to run and employees to pay.

That is why it matters who has a voice when the courts consider questions affecting taxpayer rights.

A Federal tax case may begin with a dispute involving one taxpayer, but we have to remember, the court's decision could establish a precedent affecting people across the country. The attorneys involved have a duty to represent their clients. Broader questions about how a ruling will affect other taxpayers may not receive the appropriate attention. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act would address the problem.

This legislation would allow the National Taxpayer Advocate, with the court's permission, to submit a friend of the court brief in Federal tax cases involving issues that broadly affect taxpayer rights. That would give the court an additional perspective on the practical consequences of its decision. As I mentioned, to pay a private attorney to do that may be prohibitive for the taxpayer.

The advocate would not become the personal attorney. This is a focused authority to address questions with consequences beyond an individual case. Congress should welcome that perspective. Understanding how a legal interpretation will affect ordinary Americans can help courts make better informed decisions and help prevent problems from spreading throughout the tax system.

Taxpayer protections must have practical value when a person is dealing with the Federal Government. Giving the National Taxpayer Advocate this limited role is a sensible step towards making those protections more meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, one more time, thank Congressman Steube and Chairman Smith for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, that was a good speech by Mr. Suozzi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9500, the Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act. For many Americans, financial security means decades of hard work, setting aside money paycheck after paycheck, saving for retirement and making sacrifices so their family will always have something to fall back on. A criminal can take away that security in a matter of days.

Financial scammers can involve someone posing as a trusted adviser, a fraudulent investment, or online relationship built around deception. By the time a victim discovers what happened, the money is gone and the person responsible may be difficult to find.

These people are experts at gaining people's trust. For an older American living on a fixed income, there may be little opportunity to replace those savings. The consequences can affect everything from paying the mortgage to affording everyday expenses.

Our tax laws should provide a fair opportunity for these victims to claim relief and begin rebuilding. Unfortunately, restrictions on personal theft

loss deductions can prevent victims from deducting qualifying losses. Refund deadlines can create another obstacle when someone discovers the fraud years after it occurred.

The Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act would address these problems by expanding access to personal casualty and theft loss deductions and giving qualifying victims additional flexibility and time to seek refunds.

The bill recognizes the damage these crimes can do to retirement savings. It would provide relief from the early withdrawal penalty for qualifying retirement distributions connected to theft losses and allow eligible amounts to be repaid into retirement accounts.

In addition to losing money, you can be penalized right now with early withdrawal penalties.

These provisions would help people who are trying to put their finances back together after being deceived. I have dealt with some of these people. They are so crafty. Even surprisingly intelligent people can be taken advantage of.

A tax deduction cannot restore everything, but Congress can make sure that unnecessary tax burdens do not make an already difficult recovery even harder. We should continue pursuing the criminals responsible while ensuring that their victims receive fair treatment under the tax code.

Mr. Speaker, one more time, I thank Chairman Smith and Congressman Miller for their work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''