H.R. 9641, H.R. 3108, H.R. 9642, H.R. 9468, H.R. 3514, H.R. 9644, and H.R. 9645

The committee will come to order. Welcome to our mark-up of tax administration legislation. The Ways and Means Committee is dedicated to to improving the IRS for the benefit of taxpayers. To that end, we will consider seven bills that strengthen taxpayer productions, improve customer service at the IRS, and provide transparency regarding the questionable activities of certain tax-exempt organizations. Several of the policies in these bills come as recommendations from the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent office within the IRS charged with protecting taxpayer rights at one of the most feared federal agencies. Our first piece of legislation postpones tax deadlines for hostages, an individual wrongfully detained abroad. Upon their return home, these hostages could be greeted with a stack of bills from the IRS, seeking to collect the income tax they owe from the time that they were detained abroad. That's not right. The IRS should not add insult to injury with demands for payment, while these Americans were held in captivity. Representatives Tinney and Beier have introduced legislation that extends extends the deadlines for American Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained and their spouse. The next bipartisan bill, introduced by Representatives Max Miller and Swasey, protects victims from taxation on the losses that they incur due to theft. Today, Americans face countless scams and many victims may not find out that they have become the target of one until years later. Unfortunately, current tax rules require victims to pay tax on their scam-related losses. This bill helps make taxpayers whole again by allowing them to deduct the losses incurred from scams. And if they discover they have become a fraud victim years after the fact, allowing them to file an amended return to receive a tax refund on those losses. We will next consider legislation from Representative Stubbe and Del Bene that strengthens the voice of taxpayers in court cases related to taxpayer rights. This legislation would allow the National Taxpayer Advocate to file amicus briefs in federal courts in support of fundamental taxpayer rights, particularly those contained in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Next, we will look at legislation from Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Buchanan and Representative Horsford. that harnesses the power of artificial intelligence to identify fraudulent or inaccurate tax returns. AI could make the IRS workforce more efficient, and ensuring the IRS is prepared to utilize this technology is important to the future of the agency. That's why this legislation creates a new pilot program for the use of AI in identifying tax returns to test the best approaches for keeping private information secure. Our next piece of legislation tackles fraud and tax preparation. Too many Americans have encountered so-called ghost tax preparers, shady businesses who unbeknownst to the taxpayer file income tax returns that appear as if the taxpayer prepared the return themselves. This illegal act can cause taxpayers to become entangled with the IRS through no fault of their own. This bill from Representative Maliotakis cracks down on these illegal operators and clarifies the tax law so innocent Americans deceived by these fraudulent tax preparers are not on the hook for assessments, taxes, or penalties for the indefinite future. After, we will consider legislation from oversight subcommittee chairman Schweichert that modernizes the IRS workforce by establishing a data scientist fellowship program that will help the agency solve complex tax administration problems and improve customer service at the IRS. Lastly, we will consider legislation that updates the form nine ninety schedule H, the annual disclosure form required of all U S tax-exempt hospitals. Committee hearings and investigations into hospital empires have made it clear that the nine ninety form in its current version is woefully inadequate, and makes it possible for these entities to hide potential abuse of the tax code. Tax-exempt hospitals who are supposed to care for needy patients at low cost, are no charge in exchange for their lucrative tax break, do not, do not always reveal how much charity care is provided at each of their member hospitals. What we do know is tax-exempt hospitals look less like hospitals and more like hedge funds. These multi-billion dollar tax-tax exempt hospital empires engage in real estate and stock investments. They purchase stadium naming rights and even participate in political activism. The CEO of the nation's largest tax-exempt hospital chain admitted to this very committee that his hospital empire invested seven hundred and eighteen million dollars in equities, along with paying twenty-one million dollars in compensation to their previous CEO. If all this money is being spent on items unrelated to health care, Americans, Americans deserve to know how much charity care a tax-exempt hospital provides to vulnerable patients. This bill introduced by Doctor Mar- Murphy promotes more transparency, by updating the nine ninety forms so tax exempt hospitals share additional information to give taxpayers a clearer sense of how hospitals choose to take advantage of their generous tax benefits. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If passed, I am hopeful many entities will be inclined to put more money into patient access through charitable care and less into self-promotion. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance these bills out of committee, and to the floor. I'm now pleased to recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts, Mister Nill, for his opening statement.

Thank you. As we consider another assortment of tax administration bills, tomorrow marks one year since our colleagues on the other side of the aisle cajoled the big ugly tax law over the finish line. Just yesterday, which is becoming a regular pattern in the House of Representatives, House Republicans can no longer even keep control of the House floor long enough to commemorate the big ugly law. which incidentally is polling right now at thirty-four percent with the American people, in terms of favorability. Another failed birthday party, but what a fitting tribute for a failed law which has harmed already so many families. Our colleagues promised lower costs. That has not materialized. They promised prosperity. That has not materialized. And they promised more money in people's pockets, and that certainly has not materialized. Instead, families are paying more for groceries, housing, energy, costs and travel. Consumer confidence has hit all-time lows and economic growth has fallen well short of the rosy projections they touted. In fact, almost two-thirds of the American people believe the country is headed in our the wrong direction. And while workers and families are being asked to stretch each paycheck, those at the very top are experiencing a completely different reality. Nowhere is that more clear than in our tax system, where at every turn the Trump administration is showering the rich less scrutiny, more lenient rules, and certainly higher refunds. The American people deserve a tax system that is fair, functional, and has earned their trust. Right now, millions are worse off because the Trump administration shrunk the IRS workforce by nearly one-third and even the taxpayer advocate has acknowledged that phone calls are going unanswered because of the cuts. There are not enough employees to open the mail, answer the phones, or assist taxpayers with their issues. People are left waiting for hours if not days and on the phone for months to get their refunds. On the other side of the spectrum, the president has secured a lifetime of never having to worry about IRS scrutiny again for himself. The administration can try to change the subject, but questions remain about this immunity agreement and the taxpayer-funded slush fund, which is why Republicans should stand up and join us in making sure this can never happen. A fair tax system is the bedrock of democracy and depends on public confidence, that everyone, without regard to wealth or status, is held indeed to the same standard. When the President can shield himself from IRS audits, confidence certainly erodes. Today's mark-up includes a handful of bills, but these bills cannot reverse how this administration has systematically weakened the IRS, undermined confidence in our tax laws, and further tilted the system, once again, to those at the very top. One year later, let the record reflect the promises that have evaporated and all that remains in their place are higher costs and clearly more dysfunction on the House floor, leaving the people wondering when the committee can start to address the problems on the hearts and minds of the American people. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Our first order of business is H. R. ninety-four ninety-six, the N, Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, introduced by Representatives Tinney and Beyer. which extends tax filing deadlines for individuals who are unlawfully detained or held hostage abroad. Representative Tinney has been at the forefront of this effort to ensure Americans who are held hostage abroad are treated with respect when they return home and are not greeted on the tarmac with a tax bill. Last Congress, it was her legislation to provide fair tax treatment to Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad that ultimately advanced to the House of Representatives. Previous legislation that would prevent the IRS from posing fines and penalties on Americans held hostage, also received unanimous approval in the Senate. This is as common sense as it comes. I appreciate Representative Tinney for keeping up this fight, and I urge my colleagues to once again support this effort, and I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from New York, Miss Tinney, for an opening statement.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, and uh uh and thank you for having this hearing and and recognizing the very sensitive and difficult situation that some Americans unfortunately find themselves in. Uh I had a constituent, I still have a constituent, a a a a man named Ryan Corbett who was detained in a nine by nine foot cell in Afghanistan for over two years, uh while his wife and children were were home alone, not knowing what the outcome would be. Uh miraculously uh Ryan was able to be released on January twentieth. uh, twenty twenty five, literally the evening of President Trump's inauguration. Uh, we are grateful to everyone for that, but during this time period, people like, like Ryan Corbett, for example, continued to have penalties against them and, and assessments by the IRS because their filings were late, and they weren't able to put their tax returns in. Obviously, he was unable, uh, being in a nine by nine cell in Kabul, Afghanistan, uh, under the Taliban's rule. Uh, so this is a really common sense provision as the chairman uh indicated let's give these Americans people who are are unable to for for circumstances beyond their control particularly in this situation uh to give them a chance and and there's number numerous uh division sections of this uh for postponing tax deadlines also uh to refund an abatement for anything that any fines and and these individuals may incur and also uh this also extends the period of time for which they can put in timely tax returns It's really just common sense. It's about helping uh Americans in the worst of situations. And uh we're just hopeful that my colleagues will will join us and uh and and make sure this legislation gets passed and I appreciate the chairman uh bringing this to the forefront and recognizing the plight of Americans who end up in this unfortunate situation and uh you know certainly we are so grateful for the miracle that Ryan Corbett is home with his wife and three w- three beautiful children but thank you again, Mister Chairman, and I yield.

Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts.

Thank you. Let me yield my time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mister Beier.

Uh, thank you, Mister Neal, very much. And thank you, Mister Chairman. I also want to thank Representative Cheney for her leadership on this long overdue legislation the end tax penalties on American Hostages Act. After enduring captivity overseas, Americans who have been taken hostage or wrongfully detained often return home to massive tax bills from the IRS. These char- charges come in the form of interest on late tax payments, and fines for non-payment of taxes during their detention. In some cases, they can total tens of thousands of dollars. Remember, these are people, these are faced by people who are returning from months or even years of imprisonment overseas, who are doing their best to put their lives back together. Besides these penalties being financially ruinous, it's hard to overstate the emotional and mental toll of having to deal with them, as the process can drag on for months. This absurd situation is obviously not the fault of the individual taxpayers, but nor is it the fault of the IRS, which doesn't have the authority to fully waive or delay these payments. So it's up to us to fix this problem, and it's long past time that we did so. I'm glad to say that with the advocacy of Representative Tenney, along with other champions in the House and Senate, we're on the cusp of providing urgently needed relief for these taxpayers. The bill postpones tax deadlines for any U. S. national held hostage detained abroad, while also extending relief to the spouse of the hostage or detainee. Additionally, it reimburses fees and penalties paid by American detainees and hostages released since twenty twenty one. With this legislation we can do our part to make these Americans' lives a little easier and put them on the path towards being whole again. I urge McCullough to vote yes, and I thank you.

Heels back.

Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety-four ninety-six, the end tax penalties on American hostages. Hostages Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, With an emphasis on the changes made since introduction, I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Mister Chairman, the uh committee members have before them two joint committee documents, JCX twenty twenty-six and JCX twenty-seven twenty-six, which describe H R ninety-four ninety-six and the Chairman's amendment and the nature of a substitute. The Chairman's amendment and the nature of a substitute makes uh small clerical corrections to the underlying provision And that underlying provision extends the due dates for filing and payment in the case of persons held as a hostage or persons wrongfully detained. In addition, the period of detention or as a hostage is disregarded for determination of any interest or penalties. And this relief is also extended to the spouse of such an ind- uh, individual. The secretary of the treasury is to engage with the secretary of state and the attorney general, uh, to properly identify persons who would qualify under this provision, and the provision would be effective for taxable years ending after the date of an uh date of enactment. Also, there's a companion provision that directs the Secretary of the Treasury to initiate a program under which individuals detained during the period beginning January first of twenty twenty-one and extending through the date of enactment, um, uh, may seek refunds uh, for any, uh, uh, any assessments that, uh, were imposed during that period. Uh, the staff of the joint committee has estimated this would have a negligible effect on, uh, federal receipts during the, uh, budget period fiscal twenty-twenty-seven through fiscal twenty-thirty-six. That includes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Mister

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm very pleased to see this bill, uh, so belatedly, uh, here before the committee for approval. Certainly no American who's held hostage uh, or their families should have to worry about staying current on their taxes, returning from captivity only to be met by an IRS penalty. To its credit, the IRS has worked to resolve this problem on its own. It has used the legislative authority that it already has. to ease this burden administratively. And Inspector General's report this year confirms that the IRS implemented new procedures for penalty relief. But that report also found that the relief is still lacking with some of the freed hostages not really getting all that they're entitled to. And the IRS has been candid about its own limits, that under current law it cannot forgive the interest that keeps accruing while an American sits in a foreign cell. This bill gives these protections the force of law and closes the gap the R S cannot reach on its own uh it has my full support. Of course, Ms. Tinney's bill could have long ago become the law of the land. In the prior Congress, as the Chairman just noted, the Senate unanimously passed this very same relief for hostages. But this committee's Republican majority refused to give them that certainty. Instead, they were intent on using our shared concern for Americans wrongly held abroad, as an excuse for expanding the Trump regime's power to undermine a non-profit by revoking its tax exempt status without providing a shred of evidence based solely on a claim that they were supporting terrorists. Terrorist supporter, uh a rather expansive term that authorita- authoritarian governments use, can be implemented uh in a way by the Trump regime as most anyone who does not accept Trump as a self-described messiah. While the court uh while the House passed the bill, over my objection uh last year and the objection of most Democrats, the Senate wisely refused to expand Trump's uh power to weaponize the tax code. That bill, the " non-profit killer" as some called it, would have let the president's appointee simply label a non-profit a terrorist-supporting organization, flip the burden on to the accused, give them ninety days to prove a negative, revoke their status without ever offering a shred of evidence, or even stating the reason why their uh n- status was being revoked. And of course, an appeal after your tax-exempt status is revoked, uh, is no relief at all for a nonprofit. The nearly three hundred groups that implored Congress to vote no were not terrorists. They were churches, they were hospitals, immigrant aid organizations, charities, and non-profit newsrooms like the ones that give the public the facts on this level of government and every other one. Uh, this uh effort that was made last year was never a shield against our enemies. It was a sword against Trump's enemies. The very same language came back here last year, once again in this committee, buried in Trump's big ugly bill, which Republicans are celebrating. And this committee passed it on a totally partisan vote, twenty-six to nineteen. Only after hundreds of charities across the country again raised the alarm, was it quietly stripped from the bill before it reached the House floor. Americans across the political spectrum opposed giving the president the unilateral power by overwhelming majori- margins, because they understand a simple truth. A president that can destroy his critics without evidence, has far more room to enrich himself and to rig the next election. So I'm pleased that we're finally being permitted to do this the right way. It should have happened from the start, a clean bill for the hostages and their families without any poison hidden inside. The first rule of confronting a would-be strongman is not to hand him more tools. Today, we take this one off the table and give American hostages the relief they've earned. I support this bill and I yield back.

Miss Saul.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our c- colleagues, Representatives Tinney and Beyer for advancing this bipartisan legislation. You know, after um Russia invaded Ukraine in February of twenty twenty-two, two Alabamians by the name of Alex Drucke and Andy Wynn volunteered uh to join Ukraine resistant efforts and were captured by Russian forces. Uh, these Alabamians were held captive as POWs for over four months, and it took a coordinated effort from the entire Alabama delegation and the State Department to rele- to secure their release. If we passed this legislation, they would have been able to fully focus on their medical treatment and recovery, instead of worrying about tax penalties from the, um, from the federal government. I therefore really support this legislation and ask that we, uh, uh, that this bipartisan edu- bipartisan legislation, uh, become law. The bipartisan end tax penalties on on American Hostages Act would stop the IRS from levying fines on Americans who have been wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Are there additional members that wish to start the last word? Seeing none, um, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R ninety-four ninety-six as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety-four ninety-six.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes.

Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mister Estes.

Yes.

Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yeah, yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof.

Yes.

Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe,

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn.

Yes.

Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Malia Tauchis. Miss Malia Tauchis, yes. Mister Kerry.

Yes.

Mister Kerry, yes.

Yes.

Mister Joachim.

Yes.

Mister Joachim, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes.

Mister Miller? Yes. Mister Bean? Mister Moran? Am I on the recording? Mister Moran? Yes. Yes.

How is Mister Arrington recorded?

Mister Arrington is not recorded. Yes, I am on the recording. Mister Arrington? Yes. Come on. Go ahead, guys. Mister Neal. Yeah, I'm sure there's some more. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Do- Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson. I. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson. Yes. Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Yes. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene.

Aye.

Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer.

Yes.

Mister Beyer, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Uh.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez.

Aye.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister LaHood. Mister Bean. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the yeses are forty and the nos are zero.

There being forty yeses and zero noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-four ninety-six as amended is ordered favorably reported to the house without objection I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-four ninety-six and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R ninety-five hundred, the tax relief for Fraud Victims Act, introduced by Representatives Max Miller and Swazi. As a leading voice on our oversight subcommittee, Representative Miller has made combating fraud and protecting the interests of taxpayers a top priority. I commend him for his focus on ensuring taxpayers get the relief they need as they try to rebuild their finances. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Miller, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I think I wanna thank my colleague, uh, Mister Swasey. I'm pleased that this committee is taking up my bill. the Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act. This is a common-sense bipartisan answer to a crisis that is devastating families and seniors across our nation a crisis that has hit record levels. We are living in an era where technology has fundamentally altered the landscape of crime. The FBI's twenty twenty-five internet crime report paints a grim picture. Cyber-enabled crimes have defrauded Americans of nearly twenty-one billion dollars, in a single year. That's a twenty-six percent increase in losses from the year prior. We're witnessing an industrialization of deception before our very eyes. For the first time, the FBI's report features a dedicated section on artificial intelligence used in over twenty-two thousand complaints, and costing Americans nearly nine hundred million dollars. Criminals are now using generative AI to clone the voices of our loved ones and launch hyper-personalized attacks at scale. The numbers for our seniors are particularly devastating. Last year, Americans over the age of sixty reported seven point seven billion dollars in losses, a thirty-seven percent increase in the number of complaints compared to the previous year. These aren't just statistics. These are the life savings, retirement accounts, and securities of our constituents. When a taxpayer is targeted by these increasingly sophisticated scams, they suffer an unimaginable blow they never see coming and can never But the law adds a second layer of injury. Under the current tax code, we effectively treat those stolen assets as taxable income. It is a fundamental failure of our system when a victim is robbed by a criminal and then taxed by their own government on the money that was stolen from them. The v- they're victims twice over by the fraudster and by the tax code that hasn't kept pace with today's digital threats. This bill restores theft loss deduction Provides flexibility for reporting losses and ensures retirement accounts are not treated as taxable windfall when drained by scammers. I want to thank Representative Swasey for his partnership on this issue of fundamental taxpayer, fundamental taxpayer fairness, which serves as a powerful reminder that we can deliver effective, real-world solutions when we work across the aisle. We cannot stop the evolution of technology, but we can ensure our tax code provides a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. This bill is a lifeline for the vulnerable, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

I now recognize a ranking member from Massachusetts,

Thank you.

Mr. Neal.

Thank you. Let me uh yield my time to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, Mister Larson.

Thank you, Mister Neal, thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh congratulations to Mister Miller and uh Mister Swasey on what I think as Mister Miller described it as a common sense bill and a common sense approach. I especially wanna commend Mister Swasey for underscoring something he's been working on since twenty seventeen when he arrived here and uh as it deals with uh crumbling foundations and pyrotei. Again, it's uh uh something that may not be known to all members, uh but it's related to a a similar kind of disaster that occurred for people called dry well. Also want to acknowledge the work of Mister Neal during this time to make sure that victims uh in this strongly hit uh southern New England and uh Massachusetts, but also New York and other states uh imagine uh having bought a home and invested and then only to come to find that uh an element called pyrothite actually crumbles the foundation. People were seeing sunlight through their basic foundations or taking chunks away from it. So, uh, as Mister Miller indicated, this is, uh, a tremendous step forward. Uh, and, uh, the bill repeals the limitation on casualty loss deduction put in place by the twenty seventeen Trump law, and, uh, made permanent by OBAA. Uh, this limitation, uh, limited the, uh, deduction to damage caused by presidentially declared natural disasters. In twenty seventeen, uh, Representative Courtney and others and Mister Neal, uh, met to get the guidance from Treasury Department that, um, how homeowners impacted by crumbling foundation were able to use the casualty loss deduction to write off the cost of repair. Uh, in twenty seventeen, shortly after, uh, we were able to secure the twenty seventeen uh, when the Tru- Trump uh tax law of twenty s- seventeen passed, uh, we were able to secure a safe harbor that allowed homeowners to amend their twenty seventeen tax returns. Uh, the work of Mister Miller and Mister Swasey expands upon this and does a great service, as Mister Miller said, from a common sense perspective. I know this uh effort by Mister Swasey was uh uh personal and uh I had the opportunity to work with him uh directly. Uh I wanted also to submit for the record um, Mister Chairman, a uh uh a letter from uh Representative Joe Courtney who has uh been immersed in this issue since twenty fifteen uh for the record if if I might and uh also

Without objection.

uh uh wanted to uh again thank the efforts uh by the committee staff also in working with the IRS uh throughout this. This is a uh when you're confronted with something like this and visit citizens uh through no fault of their own who are subject to Uh, and we all know how critical the issue of housing is, but when you have a house and it's your key investment and through no fault of your own, it's crumbling before your very eyes, you can, I think, rightfully understand uh the need to address this, which makes the uh bipartisanship of this uh and the work together that Mister Miller and Mister Swasey provided uh outstanding and sets an example. And I know uh My colleagues are probably wondering how I'm gonna sneak Social Security into this. Uh, so I would only I would only add that it demonstrates what happens when you work uh bipartisanly as a representative, excuse me, as Senator Warren and uh Senator Moreno uh recently uh demonstrated. And with that, uh I'll yield back.

Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety five hundred, the tax Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance, along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartold, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, With an emphasis on the changes made since introduction, I ask that members hold their questions until after this presentation.

Mister Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, JCX twenty-one and JCX twenty-eight, which describe HR ninety-five hundred and the chairman's amendment the nature of a substitute. The chairman's amendment, the nature of a substitute, makes uh clerical uh corrections to the underlying legislation and contains, uh, generally three components. First, The proposal generally reinstates the pre-twenty-eighteen law, which allows an individual taxpayer a deduction for a personal casualty loss, including theft losses, to the extent such losses exceed ten percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. With, specifically with respect to thefts from fraud, uh, the provision allows the taxpayer to elect to treat that loss, uh, as occurring in the taxable year in which the loss, in which the theft occurred. rather than the year in which it's discovered. And to accomplish that, it extends the limitation period for filing for uh uh for refunds. It also makes uh co- provides comparable relief in the case of a taxpayer who has incurred an additional tax on an early distribution from a qualified retirement plan. And then, as just noted by Mister Larson, it provides a special rule for losses to a principal residence that are attributable to concrete foundations adversely impacted by pyrotite. Uh, the general limitations period, again, is treated as not expiring before one year after the date of enactment, uh, and it's not limited to taxes, uh, paid within the prior two or three years. This provision would be effective for casually losses, sustained, and retirement plan distributions after December thirty-first of twenty-twenty-five. And with respect to pyrotite losses, uh, losses after December thirty-first of twenty-twenty. Uh, the joint committee staff has estimated that the, uh, effect on federal receipts would be a loss of six point five-two billion dollars over the fiscal period of fiscal years twenty-twenty-seven through twenty-thirty-six. That concludes my brief description. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, does any member wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, um, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mister Panetta.

Uh, yeah, I have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chairman.

Would the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, I reserve a point of order.

A po- a point of order has been reserved. Uh, Mr. Panetta, proceed.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, obviously I appreciate this bill, appreciate the good work between Mr. Miller and Mr. Swasey, um, but I just have one issue that I n- think needs to be addressed through this amendment, which would ensure that the bill's provisions apply retroactively. I support the goal of this legislation to provide critical tax relief to those who have suffered devastating financial losses, at the hands of scammers. Unfortunately, because the bill's provisions only apply for tax years twenty, twenty-five and beyond, as written, the bill would leave many of our constituents without relief. Now, my office has seen too many seniors defrauded of their retirement savings and hit with a double blow, meaning that not only are their funds stolen, but they are facing a tax liability on money that they no longer have. And the consequences are devastating, as we know. When someone's retirement savings are stolen, it shatters decades of financial planning. It can financially destabilize entire families, forcing seniors to delay medical care, rely on their adult children for support, and suffer a diminished quality of life after years of frugal living. After contending with that loss, taxing victims on money that was stolen from them is borderline cruel. I have had multiple seniors come to my office hoping that their tax bill was a mistake, and that we could fix the situation with casework. Sadly, unless we make this bill retroactive, there is little that our offices can do. I believe it's borderline irresponsible to leave these victims without tax relief simply because they were defrauded during a single eight-year period. It condemns them to manage an unfair and unfort unaffordable tax bill at the very moment they are most financially vulnerable. However, Mister Chairman, and as we've discussed prior to this hearing, uh, I would uh h- withdraw this amendment if there is a commitment to work with us towards incorporating this provision on the floor as we go forward.

Thank you, Mister Panetta. Um, definitely uh wanna work with you on this. I think it's a it serves a very good purpose and a good idea to try to implement.

And with that commitment, Mister Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R ninety five hundred as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety five hundred as amended to the House of Representatives the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes.

Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly.

Yes.

Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweiker. Mr. LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yes. Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick,

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stuebe,

Yes.

Mister Stuebe, yes. Mister Tenney, Mister Tenney, yes. Mister Svitsbak. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Mister Van Duyn, Mister Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra, Mister Feenstra, yes. Mister Maliotakis. Miss Malia Takis, yes. Mister Kerry,

Yes.

Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Yockem,

Yes.

Mister Yockem, yes. Mister Miller,

Yes.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean,

Yes.

Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran,

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal,

Yes.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett,

Yes.

Mister Doggett, Yes, Mr. Thompson.

Aye.

Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson.

Yes.

Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis.

Yes.

Mr. Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene.

Aye.

Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes.

Yes.

Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes.

Yes.

Mister Schneider.

Aye.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta.

Yes.

Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez.

Aye. Yes.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford.

Yes.

Miss Plaskett.

What's the base here?

Mister Swazi.

Misses.

Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Errington, yes. Mister Estes. Misses Fischbach. Misses Fischbach, yes. Mister Boyle. Mister Horsford. Mister Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are thirty-nine and the noes are zero.

There being thirty-nine yeses and zero noes, a motion is agreed to and H R ninety-five hundred, as amended, is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-five hundred. and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk's supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R ninety-five O one, the A I Tax Integrity Act of twenty twenty six, introduced by Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Buchanan and Representative Horsford. The pilot program authorized by this legislation is a reasonable approach toward embracing the power of AI while ensuring our tests drive the policy first. With his years of experience on his commi- on this committee, including as our current Vice Chairman and previous Chairman of the Tax Subcommittee, and Oversight Subcommittee, Representative Buchanan understands better than anyone that we can always do more to enforce our tax laws. But at the same time, we must be cautious to implementing new, perhaps sweeping policies and never undermine our oversight over how the IRS goes about its business. I appreciate the Vice Chairman's leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that takes a thoughtful approach towards better tax treatment. I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mister Buchanan, for an opening statement.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for moving forward with my legislation that will enable the IRS to take a serious look at tax fraud using artificial intelligence. Billions of dollars are lost to fraudsters each year, as much as six hundred six hundred billion dollars. As AI continues to advance, Congress has a responsibility to evaluate, and that's the key, how this might make a difference uh in terms of being more effective, efficient, more accountable than what we've had in the past. The AI Tax Integrity Act establishes a temporary pilot program to evaluate whether AI can be effectively id- identify different opportunities in terms of tax fraud. Following the pilot, the GAO will report to Congress on its effectiveness. Most importantly, the bill does not. That's critical to a lot of people, expand the IRS enforcement activity, and is fo- focused on the evaluation of AI through the IRS. I'd like to thank Congressman Horsford, stri- uh, striker, and Bean for standing with me as we work to close the gap in terms of a lot of the tax fraud that's out there. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield back.

The ranking member is recognized.

Thank you. This legislation has been tra- uh, championed by Congressman Horsford and we want to thank him for his leadership on the effort along with uh Byrne Buchanan. Artificial intelligence is already reshaping our economy and many of the processes we rely upon to this day. We've heard quite a few big promises from the Secretary of the Treasury about the use of AI at the IRS. I'll note that those remain aspirational, but this bill takes a different approach. Like with any emerging technology, this legislation seeks to thoughtfully employ AI with clear guide rails, guardrails to establish a limited pilot program at the IRS focused on narrow areas to help improve tax administration. This includes identifying identity theft, the use of ghost preparers, and even fraudulent claims. Just as important is that this pilot program is temporary, but it's also subject to independent review by the GAO before any broader application is considered. When new tools have the potential to strengthen our current systems while remaining accountable to the people they are worth further exploration, and for that reason I will support this legislation, and I yield back my time.

Thank you, ranking member. Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety five O one, the AI Tax Integrity Act of twenty twenty six. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Tom Bartel, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment and the nature of a substitute, with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.

Mister Chairman, the committee members have before them two joint committee documents, JCX twenty-three and JCX thirty, which describe the underlying legislation, H R nine five zero one, and the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. The chairman's amendment in nature of a substitute makes a modest clerical correction to the underlying legislation and the amendment, uh, starts from while the IRS is developing presently the use of artificial intelligence for use across the agency, this legislation directs the secretary to establish a specific artificial intelligence uh pilot project, specifically targeting inaccurate returns, um inaccurate returns from identity theft, fraudulent uh claims for earned income tax credit and improperly identified third-party preparers. It also provides that the Government Accountability Office prepare a report assessing this pilot program and to deliver that report to this committee and the Senate Committee on Finance. Uh, this uh legislation would be effective on the date of enactment and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that it would have a negligible effect on uh government receipts. uh during the budget period of fiscal years twenty twenty seven through twenty thirty six that concludes my brief uh description I'd be happy to answer any questions, that the members might have.

Are there any technical questions?

No.

Does any member wish to strike the last word?

No.

Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment and the substitute? Seeing seeing that there's no amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R ninety-five O one as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety-five O one as amended to the House of Representatives the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes.

Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith-Nebraska. Mr. Smith-Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Thank you. How many double-shoulders are there? Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Stubbe. Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Yes. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Yes. Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney,

Yes.

yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Miss Meliotakis. Miss Meliotakis, yes. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Yockem.

Yes.

Mister Yockem, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes, Mister Bean.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister. Mister Bean.

Yes.

Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran.

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett.

Yes.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Ah.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

I am all for the

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

I am all for the

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss DelBene.

I am all for the

Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chiu.

I am all for the

Miss Chiu, yes. Miss Moore.

I am all for the

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Yes.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider. Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez.

Yes.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Errington, yes. Mister Estes. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are forty and the noes are zero.

There being forty yeses and zero noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-five O one as amended,

Mm.

is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-five O one and that members have two additional file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R seventy nine seventy two, the Taxpayer Workforce Modernization Act, introduced by represented it by oversight subcommittee Chairman Schweikert. I commend Chairman Schweikert for his unwavering commitment to a forward-looking approach to IRS operations and for his commitment to advancing the government's technology capabilities and usage. He's always thinking outside the box, and his efforts here will allow that agency to attract top talent from institutions and industries outside of Washington. Chairman Schweikart understands that bringing more expertise and experience to the table will spur a more innovative mindset that is desperately needed. The IRS can always be doing more to better serve American taxpayers, a goal-long champion by our oversight chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I'm pleased to recognize a gentleman from Arizona, Mister Schweikert, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, fairly simple bill, it's basically trying to design a fellowship program of data scientists. And you'll notice in the language we've tried to make sure that it has in there for rules and mechanics to do audits, to being able to track fraud. Um, I I can read all sorts of parts of it. It's not that complicated. Um, but you know I, and we've talked about this in previous years, of increasing the quality and access to data science data analytics for decision making and then training IRS staff on the use of those tools. And with that I yield back, Mister S Chairman.

I now recognize the ranking member.

I'm gonna yield my time, Mister Chairman, to Mister Doggett.

Thank you very much. Uh, I want to start by giving the gentleman from Arizona his due. Uh, we seldom have a hearing that Mister Schweikart doesn't talk about data. It's important. He has spent years pressing this committee to drag the IRS into the modern age. And on the premise of this bill, uh, I do not disagree. The IRS does need world-class data scientists. a sophisticated tax evasion, the kind hidden in partnership structures and off-shore entities in the returns of the very wealthy, in the returns of the president. It's not caught by a clerk with a calculator. It is caught by economists and statisticians building models that find the needle in more than two hundred and sixty million return haystacks. So if the question is whether the IRS needs the kind of talent that he's discussing, The answer is yes, emphatically yes. But I do not support this bill because it asked the committee to applaud the hiring of the very people that the Trump regime just spent a year firing. Here is what I mean. The IRS already had a division full of data scientists. It's called the Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics Division, RAAS. And it was staffed with exactly the very kind of economists and administrators and statisticians data scientists that this bill claims to desire. They will build the models that flag high-end tax cheating. That capability is what led the Internal Revenue Service in twenty twenty-three to use artificial intelligence to identify seventy-five of the country's largest partnerships hedge funds real estate empires, the nation's biggest law firms, each averaging more than ten billion dollars in assets, and open them to audit. And what happened to them? Well, the Government Accountability Office told us that one division lost sixty-three of its key employees who'd been working on artificial intelligence. Three of its directors, the people leading the AI work, departed in a single month. And the GAO reported something that ought to stop the committee cold. A model that IRS had built to flag tax returns for audit may now be shelved, because there may not be any staff that knows how to use it. They have a machine that can find the tax cheating. They fired the people that will operate the machine. So what does this bill do about it? It stands up a boutique fellowship to recruit a handful of data scientists from the private sector at salaries that the bill sets uh at a level that is four hundred thousand dollars uh equivalent to the president's salary. Uh, and this is not a story about one division, in a single year the Trump administration and its doge henchman, uh had uh dismissed more than thirty-one thousand IRS employees, almost an entire of a third of the IRS workforce. A third of all revenue agents, gone. Forty-six percent of the agency's senior executives, gone. Seven different commissioners in twelve months. That's the kind of stability the Trump regime has offered. Senior employees resi reassigned to answer the telephone. while high-end tax cheats ran rampant and they continue to do so. That's not modernization, it's demolition. And we are not guessing at the damage, we are already measuring it. IRS data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that enforcement revenue has fallen by nearly five billion dollars in a single year, as the agency opened more than one hundred and twenty thousand fewer audits. Independent analysts estimate that the staffing cuts will cost the Treasury on the of six hundred billion dollars in the coming decade. That's six hundred billion that could have been applied to reduce our nation's soaring debt or to fund much-needed programs, real money owed and never collected. The Treasury Secretary's answer to all of this when he was here? Nah, don't worry, the fewer agents would not cost a dime because the agency would lean on smarter IT. But the GAO looked at that promise and poured cold water on it You cannot run artificial intelligence without intelligent people running it and feeding it. After a decade of Republican budget cuts, I voted for the funding that finally let the IRS build this capacity. They took a wrecking ball to that funding, and now they bring us a fellowship and call it modernization. I'm not against hiring data scientists. I'm against the pretense that a handful of fellows can backfill the thousands of skilled and dedicated employees who the Trump regime fired. Fully fund the IRS, restore the analyst, rebuild the enforcement staff, until this bill is part of that work and not just a fig leaf for demolition, I urge my colleagues to oppose it and I yield back.

Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R seventy-nine seventy-two, the Taxpayer Workforce Modernization Act. Without objection, Excuse me, I'm trying to open the door. the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the uh committee members have before them two joint committee documents, the uh committee members have before them, two joint committee documents. JCX twenty-five and JCX thirty-two, which describe H R seventy-nine, seventy-two, and your amendment in the nature of a substitute. Your amendment in the nature of a substitute uh makes modest uh clerical changes, uh uh and the general provision would establish not later than September thirtieth of this year a fellowship program within the IRS to recruit skilled data scientists with the goal to help address the most complex issues that the IRS faces. The program would be staffed with at least ten uh ten such fellows and it would establish an audit task force staffed by these fellows and regular IRS employees. Uh the uh legislation further requires that after the uh fellowship program is stood up, that the uh secretary would provide an annual report to Congress on the uh effectiveness of the fellowship program. This uh legislation would be effective on the date of enactment, uh a cost estimate of this uh pr- uh provision would it will be provided by the Congressional Budget Office as it involves uh an outlay program. Uh that concludes my brief description of uh this legislation, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Uh, Mr. Davis is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and um I'd like to associate myself with many of the comments made by Mister Doggett. I strongly oppose the Taxpayer Workforce Modernization Act. This bill is a boondoggle to the Trump administration to gift high-paid government jobs to their donors and doge lawless. Over and over the Trump administration has undermined the interim revenue service workforce, while Republicans have aided and abetted or remained silent.

Mm-hmm.

After cutting over one billion dollars from the interim revenue service, the base IRS budget is about fifty percent below its twenty-ten level, after adjusting for inflation. The TICTA just reported that the Trump IRS lost thirty percent of its workforce between January twenty twenty-five and January twenty-twenty-six and that forty-two percent of the agency's IT staffers are gone or involuntarily reassigned. The Trump administration cut the research applied analytics and statistics unit with experts specifically trained to do the work listed in this bill. The Doge team bragged about how they could use AI to reduce the workforce. Instead of supporting the actual Internal Revenue Service agency and workforce, the Republicans are rubber-stamping high salaries for politically connected individuals to do the work of the professional internal revenue staff and the Trump administration fired. Republicans have green-lighted Trump's eternal immunity from internal revenue service audits for himself, his family, and his businesses. Now they wanna gift four hundred thousand dollars in salaries to his hand-picked politically-connected friends while firing the trained professionals doing the work that this bill purports to do. Let's support those professional staff who currently work for the Internal Revenue Service. And I yield back.

Mister Thompson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mister Chairman, While I appreciate my colleagues' interest in modernize modernizing the IRS, I have serious concerns with this piece of legislation. We should absolutely be looking for ways to make the IRS more efficient, more effective, and better equipped to serve taxpayers. Modernization is an important goal, and I sus- I support responsible innovation. But replacing tens of thousands of dedicated public servants And critical investments in tax administration with just ten data scientists, a fellowship program, is simply not a serious modernization strategy. The IRS is one of the most important agencies in the federal government. It collects the revenue that funds our national priorities. It ministers critical tax benefits and serves millions of taxpayers every year. If we want an IRS that's modern, efficient and responsive, we should be investing in both technology and the experienced workforce needed to use it effectively. Technology should enhance the work of skilled employees, not be treated as a substitute for those employees. We should embrace innovation, but we should not undermine the agencies' ability to enforce the law, to combat fraud, and to provide taxpayers with the services that they deserve. For those reasons, I have significant concerns with this piece of legislation, and I'll be voting no. Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Miss Chu.

I move to strike the last word. First, look at where we are. For decades the IRS was asked to do more with less. As its resources dwindled, its workload grew. The result was exactly what you would expect. Wealthy tax sheets slipped through the cracks. Audits declined. Taxpayer service deteriorated. Refunds took long to process and the tax gap continued to grow. That's why Democrats created a solution to fix this problem. We invested a historic eighty billion dollars for the IRS and the Inflation Reduction Act to address the problems plaguing the agency for so long. Those investments were already paying off. Customer service improved, the agency was able to devote more resources to pursuing wealthy tax cheats, and experts projected those investments would return over half a trillion dollars in revenue for taxpayers. Unfortunately, this was cut short by Republicans who made it their mission to claw back this funding at every single opportunity. They've clawed back nearly ninety percent of that funding, and President Trump has fired more than twenty-eight thousand dedicated IRS employees more than one quarter of the agency's workforce. Now, Republicans bring us this bill. It would create a new fellowship program to recruit data scientists to address complex tax issues. But the IRS already has a division dedicated to exactly that work. The research, applied analytics and statistics division already employs data scientists and technical experts who developed advanced tools to detect tax evasion estimate the tax gap and strengthen tech tax compliance. And the irony is impossible to ignore. While Republicans propose creating a new fellowship to recruit experts, President Trump has already fired more than twenty-five percent of the very division that performs this work today. This bill does not solve the problem. It duplicates existing responsibilities while ignoring the real issue. The IRS has been stripped of the funding and personnel that it needs to do its job. If Republicans truly wanted to modernize the IRS IRS and improve taxpayer service, they would restore the staff. and resources, they eliminated instead of creating another unnecessary program. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill, and I yield back.

Does anyone wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, um, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order has been reserved, where the gentle lady,

Which one's your order?

um, uh uh suspend while the amendment is distributed. General Lady may may proceed.

The amendment I am offering today would prohibit the data scientists hired by this bill's fellowship program from auditing or conducting data analysis on working Americans, who earn less than a thousand dollars annually until the IRS audit immunity settlement between President Donald Trump the Department of Justice and the IRS is permanently rescinded. As we all know, the IRS audits disproportionately target earned income tax credit recipients and low income working families. Meanwhile, the Republicans gutted the funding Democrats provided the IRS to go after wealthy taxpayers who can use sophisticated schemes to dodge paying taxes. Furthermore, President Trump just made a corrupt deal with his own DOJ and IRS to insure that his family, his businesses are immune from IRS audits forever. Just this week we learned that President Trump made more than one billion dollars from crypto since he took office last year. while everyday working families are struggling to pay for higher grocery prices, as well as gas prices and skyrocketing health care costs. But, but President Trump and his wealthy friends don't have to worry ab- because they know that the IRS will not be coming after them. We will not stand by for this hypocrisy. If this new IRS fellows, if these new IRA IRS fellows cannot go after Trump, They should not be able to go after working class Americans making less than one hundred thousand dollars a year. We will not stand for this hypocrisy. Therefore, my amendment prohibits these new fellows from targeting working families as long as President Trump is immune from audits. I urge all my colleagues to vote for my amendment. We should choose to stand with hard-working taxpayers and we should not be defending President Trump and his rich friends from accountability. I also want to acknowledge that this bill is supported by st- studies showing how the focus on audits on high income individuals who often have the resources to evade paying taxes, could help collect seven hundred billion dollars in taxes that goes unpaid to the IRS each year. A twenty twenty-two report by the GAO explains that in recent years, audit rates have dropped for the most wealthiest among us. Those who are making two hundred thousand dollars or more are paying less taxes. And this fellowship program would not be necessary if the Republicans had not gutted the workforce and the IRS. The problem of declining audit rates has only been made worse by dramatic uh reductions in the workforce by the IRS in the current administration, and the twenty twenty-five doge cuts. By the middle of last year, the IRS audit staff had been reduced by approximately thirty-one percent, or three thousand and six hundred employees. Every hour used to audit taxpayers who earn over five million dollars generates nearly five mi- five thousand dollars in additional tax revenue in comparison to only sixty-five generated from auditing taxpayers, who make about two hundred thousand dollars. This is a clear reason for us to ensure that higher earners pay their fair share. I'm skeptical that these data science scientists from this fellowship program will actually create more revenue, but rather go after low-income, hard-working Americans. But if my colleagues want to inch increase uh employment at the IRS, which we desperately need, we should guarantee that the highest rates on investments from that decision would be made by going after higher uh tax earners. I asked my colleagues to support this important amendment because we should be going after the wealth- the wealthiest among us, not the - the, uh, hard-working, uh, average Americans who, um, are often the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to audits. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Does anyone wish to strike the last word on the amendment? Seeing none, um, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Miss Sewell. All all those favor, um we'll let the clerk call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

No.

Mr. Buchanan, no. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, no. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stuebe. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, no. Misses Fischbach. Misses Fischbach, no. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, no. Miss Malia Tauches. Miss Malia Tauches, no. Mister Carey. Mister Carey. No. Mr. Yackem. Mr. Yackem? No. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller? No. Mr. Bean.

Who?

Mr. Bean? No. Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran? No. Mr. Neal.

Yes.

Mr. Neal? Yes. Mr. Doggett.

Yes.

Mr. Doggett? Yes. Mr. Thompson.

I

Mr. Thompson? Yes. Mr. Larson.

Yes.

Mr. Larson? Yes. Mr. Davis.

Yes.

Mr. Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss DelBene.

Aye.

Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chiu.

Aye.

Miss Chiu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Mm.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer.

Yes.

Mister Beyer, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta.

Yes.

Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez.

Aye.

Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Estes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe.

No.

Mister Stubbe, no. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister s- Mister Swasey.

How is Mister Errington recorded?

Mister Errington is not recorded. Mister Errington, no. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-three.

There being sixteen yeses and twenty-three noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments uh to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order has been reserved. Miss DelBene, um, can you suspend while the amendment is distributed? Proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, my amendment is very simple. It restores the funding the IRS needs to do. job properly. The nearly eighty billion in enforcement and taxpayer service funding that from the Inflation Reduction Act was delivering real results. The IRS hired five thousand additional customer service representatives raising taxpayer service levels from fifteen percent to eighty-seven percent, reducing call wait times from nearly thirty minutes to two minutes, and jump-starting the long-overdue modernization of its decades-old technology. But repeated Republican cuts to these investments have stalled this progress, leaving only ten billion of the original funding. It's ironic that my colleagues across the aisle talk about how they want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse when they want to cut services to working families, but not when it impacts their wealthy friends and donors. The tax gap between the amount of taxes legally owed but not paid currently totals seven hundred billion dollars annually. These are predominantly wealthy people who are dodging their taxes, and Republicans are effectively taking away the IRS's ability to insure they're paying what they owe. Instead, Republicans are tasking the IRS with more responsibilities, like overseeing a fellowship program with fewer resources. We need an IRS that can answer the phones, process returns efficiently, upgrade technology, and make sure everyone pays their fair share. And if Republicans truly want to improve the IRS, they should give them the resources they need and make sure they're using it to enforce our tax laws. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back.

For uh, does the gentleman insist on his point of order?

Yes.

Does the sponsor of the amendment want to be heard on um, mister Buchanan's point of order?

Did he need to say his point of order? Point of order. Yeah, order's up. Yeah.

Um, yes, Mister Chairman, um, I just wanna be clear, we're talking about funding fellowship programs. I don't know why it's out of order to be talking about funding actually enforcement activity at the IRS. This seems like the basic thing that we should be focused on.

Okay, I'm prepared to rule, um, on the amendment, um, as not being germane and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

I disagree, Mister Chairman.

Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order's been reserved, Mister Doggett, we used to spin while the amendments distributed.

Surely.

Thank you.

Proceed, Mister Doggett.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. By its own terms, this bill is built to quote " support the audit of selected taxpayers". My amendment simply makes certain that that capability is allowed to reach the only set of returns that selected taxpayer who has been placed off limits. That would be President Trump, his family, and the growing number of entities that they control. In effect, the amendment repeals for this narrow investment the tax immunity that the President has granted himself. Uh, we invest, uh, in building a tool to fund unpaid taxes and recover revenue for the treasury. And in the very same breath, uh, this is walled off an audit of the Commander-in-Chief, who sets an example for all taxpayers in America, a very bad example. This bill even asked uh the IRS to prove its return on investment, and what better place to do that than with the activities of the Trump family. We can recruit the data scientist. We can give them all the analytics in the world, the transaction-level testing. the modeling, and it will all amount to very little if we also tell them that one family, only one family in all of America, the most powerful family, the one that daily, corruptly enriches itself with private gain off the public trust, if that one family, the Trump family, is simply untouchable. In what is among the most brazen acts of public corruption in the history of America, uh, the president reached a settlement with himself. not only for himself but for his family and the, Yeah, yeah. quote, affiliated individuals, whoever they may be, sweeping immunity from the tax laws that no other American has ever enjoyed. The settlement papers themselves solemnly declare that the president will receive, quote, " no monetary payment or damages of any kind." And yet the New York Times has estimated that this immunity is worth at the very least one hundred million dollars to him on a single long-term Remember, this is the president who said he would re- he would disclose all his tax returns, but they were under audit. No payment of any kind, a tax bill that exceeds one hundred million dollars just quietly disappears for him. And how did this come about? Well, he appointed his former criminal defense attorney as the acting attorney general to sign the release. That individual cannot lawfully erase a tax audit and had no right to participate in this very corrupt deal. And when the companion one point eight billion dollar fund, that's the one that would have taxpayers pay those who assaulted police officers here on January sixth in Trump's attempt to overthrow our government the Trump regime tried to sidestrip that one. Uh, it's still unclear where it stands. But the audit immunity for President Trump, the real direct benefit for him, and that'll a- actually lets him to walk away from his taxes, that all survived. Take note that thirty-five federal judges, thirty-five from both political ap- parties, uh appointed by presidents of both parties, went to court to challenge this wretched settlement as the fraud that it truly is. Singling out the very addendum that bars the government pursuing claims against the president and his family, as an extraordinary benefit handed over for nothing and special treatment in a lawsuit that the president never formally asked for this subtype of relief. A federal judge has taken these allegations serious enough to reopen the case and ordered the president to answer and former IRS and Justice Department officials have separately called this audit immunity quote " breathtakingly improper," warning that it would create two tax codes, one for the Trump family and one for all the rest of us. My amendment adds a single duty to the very task list that this bill gives these new data scientists. Review for accuracy and support the audit of any return filed by the president, any immediate relative or entity. My colleagues say they want to invest in the agency. I'm offering them the chance to make the investment mean something, because there's no sense in building the capability and then handcuffing it to spare Trump the one taxpayer with the most to hide. If we believe in this workforce, let it do its work, let it do its job without a special exemption for the powerful, I yield back and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Does anyone wish to strike the last word on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mister Doggett. Um, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

No.

Mister Buchanan, no. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, no. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof.

No.

Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe.

No.

Mister Stubbe, no. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Miss Van Duyn.

No.

Miss Van Duyn, no. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, no. Miss Maliatakis.

No.

Miss Maliatakis, no. Mr. Kerry.

No. No.

Mr. Kerry, no. Mr. Yackem.

No.

Mr. Yackem, no. Mr. Miller.

No.

Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean, Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran. Mister Neal.

Yes.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, yes.

Mm- mm.

Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss DelBene.

Aye.

Miss DelBene, yes. Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

I

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey.

Mister Stanley.

Mister LaHood.

Sorry.

Mister Errington.

Yeah.

No, that's Peter.

Mister Errington, no. Mister Estes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Moran, no. Mister Horsford. Mister Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Chairman Smith.

No.

Chairman Smith, no.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-three.

There being sixteen yeses and twenty-three noes, the amendment is not agree agreed to. Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

No.

Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor,

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R seventy nine seventy two as amended to the house of representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R seventy nine seventy two as amended to the house of representatives the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

Yes.

Mister Buchanan, yes. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yeah.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly.

Yes.

Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert.

Yes.

Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Errington, yes. Mister Estes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof.

Yes.

Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, yes. Mister Van Duyn. Mister Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Mister Malia Takis. Mister Malia Takis, yes. Mister Kerry.

Yes.

Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Joachim. Mr. Miller. Yeah. Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean. Yes. Mr. Bean, yes.

Yeah.

Yeah. Mr. Moran. Yes. Mr. Moran, yes. Yeah. Mr. Neal. No. No. Mr. Neal, no. No. Mr. Doggett. No. Mr. Doggett, no. Mr. Thompson. No. Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Larson. No. Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis. No. Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez, Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell, Miss Sewell, no. No. No. Miss Del Bene. No. Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chu. No. Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. No. Miss Moore, no. Mister Boyle, Mister Boyle, no. Mister Buyer, Mister Buyer, no. Mister Evans. No.

No.

No.

No.

Mister Evans, no. No. Mister Schneider.

No.

Mister Schneider, no. No.

No, it's not. It's not.

Mister Panetta.

No.

No, it's not. Mister Panetta, no. Mister Gomez.

No.

Mister Gomez, no. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister LaHood. Mister Estes. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Joachim.

Yes.

Mister Joachim, yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-four and the noes are sixteen.

There being twenty-four yeses and sixteen noes, the motion is agreed to in H. R. seventy-nine seventy-two as amended as ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical conforming changes to H R seventy nine seventy two and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views our next order of business is H R ninety five O four, the tax exempt hospital transparency act introduced by representative Murphy. Tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right, and I appreciate that Doctor Murphy, someone who knows a thing or two about ho- how hospitals operate, is asking some of our largest healthcare empires in this country, our non-profit hospitals, to be more transparent about what and where they spend their money while enjoying tens of billions of dollars in tax benefits. I appreciate Doctor Murphy bringing to this effort his expertise and experience as we continue to work to lower healthcare costs for families across this country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I'm pleased to recognize a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Murphy, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Transparency in government or in any entity that the taxpayer fa- for pays for is always a good thing. Transparency builds trust. Openness is the cornerstone of public confidence. And public scrutiny is a powerful safeguard. There's been growing concern with certain non-profit hospital spending practices that everything from and let me just say, let me just reiterate, certain non-profit hospitals, not everyone. And this is where it's very, very important. Uh, everything from lavish executive spending, compensation, overseas investments to advertising on sports stadiums and questionable charity care. Just remind my colleagues on this committee that the majority of most hospital funds come from the U S taxpayer, and accountability is the function, is one of the functions of Congress. With burgeoning hospital consolidation and health care costs rising for all Americans, taxpayers And patients have a right to know that their hospital, which received generous subsidies and tax benefits from the federal government, and how they are spending their money. There is something, there is simply nothing wrong with that. As I've always said, the greatest disinfectant is sunlight. As we are all told in grade school, show your work. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe we've done a good job of striking the right balance with this policy, by ensuring the requirements set forth are not overly burdensome, yet at the same time providing policymakers and the public with the necessary information to make informed decisions about whether or not certain hospitals are judiciously using and ever-increasingly scare ta- scare taxpayer dollars. As I've said before, and I mean this very, very, uh, strongly, I've been an equal opportunity offender when it comes to health care. And I'll call out anyone of those in the medical community, any sector who are not being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar or patient premiums. While the majority of non-profit hospitals are being very good stewards, there are some that are not. This, the American taxpayer needs to know the difference. At the same time, I do believe that we should require the same of our health insurers, to see how they are using and abusing something called the medical loss ratio. But, Mister Chairman, we'll wait and save that investigation for another day in what I hope will be the not-too-distant future. I want to thank his, thank our chairman for his interest and support

I now recognize the ranking member from Massachusetts.

Thank you. First, let's talk about what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't lower hospital costs. It doesn't reduce drug prices. And it doesn't address the affordability crisis. And it doesn't help hospitals that are struggling to keep the doors open succeed. Instead, it piles on duplicative reporting requirements with no clear benefit. Once again, our colleagues are invoking the health care transparency as some sort of cure-all, as though more paperwork will somehow undo the damage that they're doing to our health care system with their big ugly tax bill, scheduled to kick in after the November elections. It was in that bill that more than one trillion dollars was cut out of the health care system. all to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. The results so far, eight million Americans have lost their health coverage, countless more are facing increased premium costs, higher deductibles, and skimpier coverage. That isn't just a threat to one's health care, it's a threat to our entire system. The harm doesn't discriminate. I guarantee that most members on this dais have one facility back home that is now struggling to stay afloat in the face of these cuts and cost shifts. They're cutting mental health care, maternity care, cancer care in an effort just to keep doors open. I hear from my hospitals weekly about the strain they are under. The last thing they need is another unfunded reporting mandate. They should be investing in patient care, not more compliance staff. This bill makes good on Republicans' long-standing desire to undermine and disrupt the three forty B program. By cooking the books on requor- reporting requirements, this bill will make it seem like hospitals are scamming the program and purposely omitting any data collection on how the facilities are using three forty B dollars. Rather than lowering drug drug prices, our Republican colleagues are going to increase them and the burden to penalize those who already are going to have limited access. It's no surprise that pharma is supporting this bill. The bill is a stalking horse for our Republican colleagues because this indeed in the long run will raise prices, a distraction from the real issues hospitals in our communities are facing, and the technical merits, because there really are none. Americans are about to feel the Republican big ugly bill right after the November election. This is an effort to get out front. of the calamity that their legislation has caused. American families and the hospitals that care for them deserve better. I yield back my time.

The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety-five O four, the tax exempt hospital transparency act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read,

Mister Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, JCX twenty-six and JCX thirty-three, which describe H R ninety-five O four and your amendment in the nature of a subst- substitute. Your amendment in the nature of a substitute makes certain clerical uh changes to the underlying legislation and the proposal itself requires that all tax exempt hospital organizations report additional information on their form nine ninety this information is generally subject to public disclosure in addition the legislation specifically defines two addition specific classes of tax exempt hospital organization. It defines a large tax exempt hospital organization. This would be an organization that is, uh, not a critical access hospital, not a rural emergency hospital, and has more than one hundred inpatient beds. It would also define a high revenue tax exempt hospital organization. A high revenue tax exempt organization is not uh has net patient revenue in excess of one hundred million dollars annually. For these two classes of uh uh tax exempt hospital organization, uh there are requirements for additional and more detailed in uh information. The proposal also uh provides that for a one year period that begins three years after the date of enactment of this legislation, that the Government Accountability Office uh would study and report to the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance, the additional cost to the Treasury for administering uh uh these uh new requirements, the additional cost to the hospital organizations to comply with these requirements, and in the case of the twenty-five largest revenue uh uh tax-exempt hospital organizations, it would require the Government Accountability Office to calculate a hypothetical income tax liability that would arise were those organizations subject to the income tax. Uh, the proposal would be effective on the date of enactment, and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the effect on government revenues during the uh fiscal year uh periods of twenty-twenty-seven through twenty-thirty-six would be negligible. That concludes my brief description of this uh legislation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.

Thank you, Mr. Bartold. Are there members with technical questions? Seeing none, are there members wishing to strike the last word? Mr. Schmucker is recognized.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thanks, uh, for bringing up this important bill today, and I'd like to, uh, voice my, uh, strong support, uh, uh, for this legislation. I appreciate Doctor Murphy's, uh, leadership on it, and I'm, uh, I'm proud to be an original, uh, cosponsor because I think, uh, this is an important bill, uh, in the context of, um, the, uh, special status that we grant, um, nonprofits, um, which we've done for a long time from the IRS code, from the tax code. Uh, we - we grant, uh, uh, nonprofit status and forgiveness on uh taxes in in exchange for a public benefit provided um by that organization. We've seen over the past few decades a a a large growth in the number of non-profit organizations. They are now about five percent of the uh total GDP, economic activity, uh employ over twelve million uh individuals, and so I think uh it's incumbent on this committee to - to revisit that, uh, relationship and that benefit, um, on - on a periodic basis, and particularly, uh, as it relates to, uh, non-profit hospitals, um, you know, again, we have, uh, provided enormous tax advantages, um, in exchange for an expectation that they'll provide, uh, meaningful charitable benefits to their communities. And You know, I'll - I'll, uh, repeat what, uh, Mr. Murphy had said. uh, Many hospitals do that, uh, particularly rural hospitals, uh, critical access hospitals, provi- uh, safety net, uh, providers, but we have to also, um, look at the total landscape and realize, uh, that it looks very different, um, than it did when many of these tax policies were created. We now have large non-profit health uh systems that have become very sophisticated, multi-billion dollar enterprises. Um we've heard they own investment uh portfolios, they're certainly acquiring many physician practices, they advertise extensively, and in many cases they operate very similarly uh to their for-profit competitors. A few weeks ago at the hearing here um with uh multiple hospital CEOs, I asked the CEO of the nation's uh, largest for-profit hospital system, whether he believed that there was a meaningful difference, operational difference between for-profits and some of the non-profit hospital systems that were represented there. His answer was really simple, it was just the short answer is no. Um, he doesn't see a meaningful uh meaningful difference and so if if taxpayers are providing uh more than thirty-seven billion annually in tax benefits to non-profit hospitals and roughly that'd be roughly two hundred sixty over the next uh decade. Congress has an obligation to understand what taxpayers are receiving in return, and I think that's exactly what this bill does. Uh, to be clear, it doesn't revoke anyone's tax-exempt status. It simply asks hospitals, uh, to show their work. It requires more meaningful reporting on charity care, financial assistance, spending to address community health needs, advertising, um, health service lines, participation in the three forty B program, uh with reporting broken down by individual hospital facilities instead of um massive system-wide um aggregates. Um and so this in my view sh- really shouldn't be, this is transparency that shouldn't be uh controversial. If if non-profit hospitals are delivering extraordinary value to their communities, then this legislation will help them um demonstrate that. And if taxpayers are subsidizing activities, that do not advance charitable care, then Congress should know that as well. I think good policy begins with transparency and good information. So, I again thank Mister Murphy for leading this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Thank you. I recognize Mister Thompson for five minutes.

You can go, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mister Chairman, I'm deeply concerned about this legislation. Too many Americans are already struggling to access and afford basic health care. That challenge is even more acute in rural communities like the ones that I represent, where every hospital is a non-profit. In many of these communities, the local non-profit hospital is the only hospital for miles. It's not just a health care provider, it's an economic anchor and a lifeline during emergencies. At a time when rural hospitals are already facing tremendous financial pressure from rising costs and reductions in f- uh federal health care fundering, which will only be exacerbated by H. R. One, the big ugly bill, we should be looking for ways to strengthen them, not create new burdens that could further jeopardize their future and their service to our communities. While this bill is framed as a reporting requirement, and I might add that my Republican colleagues are increasing paperwork burden on these hospitals and adding yet another unfunded mandate, I'm concerned it could become the first step towards challenging the tax-exempt status of non-profit hospitals. That would place additional strain on providers that are already operating on thin margins and make it even harder for rural communities to maintain access to care. We should be focused on preserving access to quality, affordable health care, especially in communities that have the fewest alternatives. For those reasons, I urge a no vote on this piece of legislation, and I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Uh, Mr. Bean is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you. I move to uh strike the last word. Good morning, committee. Uh, it was going down exactly two hundred and fifty years ago today, right up the road in Philadelphia. Have you thought about it, what they were doing? They were in the room, locked in the room, debating Jefferson's declaration. Lots of amendments were being discussed. You can only imagine the uh the great, the great thinkers of the day debating, should we go forward with declaring independence? Uh, we have two things today. I, you know, d- in this room they don't have. Uh, one, we have air conditioning. I think we're all grateful for that, cuz I know it was hot uh in Philadelphia. We also have the five minute clock. I don't know if they had a five minute clock or not. Uh, probably not the one that stared me in the face right now, but it um in this room uh often limits our ability to debate and engage in ideas at a at a great level and we we hopefully solve or at least attempt to solve big problems for our country and challenges. Um We have uh met all after hours trying to build consensus, particularly in healthcare, the healthcare arena. I've done some after hours. Uh thanks to Chairman Smith we've been able to use this room We've gotten rid of the clock and brought in thinkers of healthcare and industry leaders to try to come together and build consensus. We, if we're gonna fix the deficit, which we have to, we have to solve healthcare, and we need to improve healthcare, put patients first of uh how that goes. And we've had some great debate, we've had great debate in the uh pharma executives and arena. We need them healthy, we need them competitive. We need to keep uh our country on the cutting edge of of uh of of technology, of how they design our medications. We need uh managed care to help manage the the patient and put the patient first, and get and bring value to the taxpayers. And we need providers like hospitals that are able to uh give us all that we want, the absolute best care, patient-centered. And so all that being said, the consensus is still being formed right now. I support Doctor Murphy, and if you wanna watch one of the great five minute debates of his five minutes of coming in and really saying that the system is broken we need to do better, uh, I support him. He, I know his heart is there. I believe the right answer is to vote yes on this bill. It advances the cause of, uh, of moving forward. However, I just feel like the consensus is still not there. I've heard from many hospitals in Florida, several in my region that says, " Wait, we thought we were talking, we thought we were having a discussion of how we can improve health care," and, uh, and it continued to go on. Transparency is great. It also has some ways that it changes how we, how we fund hospitals. So I wanna say vote yes on the bill, but I, and I know he is, I'm already looking at him, and he's in, because nobody is scared of the debate more than, uh, Doctor Murphy when it comes to, to, to health care. Uh, I, uh, appreciate that very much. Florida hospitals, you know, we're still struggling, we we are already extremely efficient. Uh, and then some of the caps of of what we've what we've limited it in of their growth has has brought great concern. But yet we support transparency, we support the debate of going forward. So vote yes. Thank you for uh being open, you're open, you came and spoke, Doctor Murphy, at one of the consensus. Uh, you were very lively and uh energized the room. So with We're voting yes today, but I just hope that this committee will continue to debate so we can have a product that uh that moves America forward. Happy birthday, America. Yield back.

Uh, the gentleman yields back, I'd now recognize Mister Davis for five minutes to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I'll now strike the last word. And I certainly appreciate Doctor Murphy's scale, passion, and interest in health care and health care delivery. But one year after Donald Trump and the Republicans cut over one trillion dollars out of health care to fund tax cuts for billionaires and big businesses, millions of people have lost health insurance, millions more crushed by exploding health care costs, Hospitals are closing and cutting services and staff. People face the impossible choice between seeing a doctor, paying rent, eating, or getting gasoline. Yet the Republican leadership is moving a bill that does absolutely nothing, nothing to lower health costs or stabilized hospitals. More than a hundred and seventy-five thousand Illinoisans have lost their Medicaid, CHIP, or ACRA coverage after the GOP's big ugly deal. Premiums for Illinoisans receiving ACRA tax cuts increased by an average of one hundred and forty-four percent this year. Illinois hospitals alone are expected to lose just under thirty-one point three billion dollars annually with twenty-six health care providers at risk. Nouse cuts, closing all have closed, including one across the street from where I live. At a time when we should be helping hospitals, after we cut one trillion dollars from health care, the GOP's solution is a bill with additional paperwork rather than tax credits to help people buy health insurance and rather than funding to help hospitals hire health professionals to care for people. I just happen to have more hospital beds in my district than any other member of Congress. My professional work background includes working with health centers to provide low-cost health care to people in need. I co-led the bipartisan Rural and Underserved Health Task Force, where we recognized that rural and underserved hospitals face similar challenges as urban hospitals. This bill is an offensive answer to the urgent health care crisis facing Americans. The bill does absolutely nothing to lower costs for patients. It does nothing to help hospitals provide low-cost care. It does nothing to push pharma to lower drug costs. The bill rejects the needs of hospitals in urban areas by carving out protections for certain rural hospitals, ignoring the very work done bipartisanly by members of this committee. It unfairly targets hospitals solely on the basis of their size, without accounting for their unique cost structures, especially for academic health systems and teaching hospitals who invest in their communities and ensure access to care for patients with complex, highly acute care needs, such as transplantation, level one trauma care, needle nail intensive care, and burn care. These health systems and hospitals train tomorrow's health care workforce and invest in medical research. Rather than helping health systems and hospitals focus on treating patients, train future health care providers, conduct cutting-edge research, and serve their communities, this bill forces these health entities to divert critical funding to administratively burdensome requirements. So I strongly oppose the tax exempt Hospital Transparency Act for its abject failure to meet the health care crisis facing American hospitals and communities. And, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record statements by the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and America's essential hospitals voicing their concerns about the Tax Exempt Hospital Transparency Act, and I yield back.

Without objection, so order, the gentleman yields back. I recognize to strike the last word, Ms. Sanchez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the goal of added transparency for non-profit hospitals and large health systems. However, this legislation before us is un-vetted. There is currently no singular source of public data on hospital costs and finances. Medicare cost reports are publicly accessible, but may be misreported or inconsistently reported. Audited financial statements are not universally available and often only completed on the system level. And private non-profit hospitals or health systems can have their nine nineties audited by the IRS However, multiple investigations have found major inconsistencies and errors in these forms. My colleagues across the aisle and I can agree, three forty-B participants now spend less on uncompensated care compared to earlier three forty-B participants. And unlike non-hospital covered entities, hospitals are not required to reinvest their three forty-B savings. And that's why I support the intent of this bill. We do need transparency, and I think it would be good for the public to know which specific drugs hospitals acquire under this program. Hospitals also currently do not need to report three forty B drug volume or revenue, and how they use this revenue, including whether they fund safety net services. I think there is much that we can work together on to improve hospital transparency. But unfortunately, this bill only adds a reporting burden and compliance costs for hospitals, while failing to improve our system. And I'm sure we all have heard how much reporting burdens and compliance burdens eat into the um ability of hospital systems to stay to stay in in service. This bill ultimately fails to create a solution to ensure that three-forty B savings are being reinvested into the communities that they are intended to serve. We need to hold some of these largely taxpayer-funded hospital systems accountable, but this effort makes clear to me that the Republicans are only piling on to the one trillion dollars in health care cuts they passed almost one year ago today. And for these reasons, I cannot support this bill. I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Now recognize Mister Doggett to strike the last word.

Well, big s- pharma strikes again today. Transparency is uh an important uh gold, enabling uh enforcement of our federal rules, assuring reasonable spending, and allowing the Congress to consider reforms. But when reporting, requirements are duplicative, vague, or near impossible to interpret, as is true with this bill, They only serve to provide more confusion and room for error. And that's what we have in this rushed bill with cherry-picked entities and data to create a misleading narrative about the three-forty-B program, one of big farmers' favorite scapegoats. Republicans have long opposed doing anything to restrain big pharma monopoly prices, instead working to undo the work that Democrats did to establish an overly narrow price negotiation program. Now in another gift to the industry, uh, which has twice as many lobbyists as there are members of Congress, uh, the non-profit hospitals are being targeted. They are the most vulnerable in our c- they're dealing with the most vulnerable neighbors in our communities, and they're getting targeted instead of Big Pharma, which is charging Americans the highest prices for pharmaceuticals in the world, and remains one of the most profitable industries in America. Big Pharma clearly has a stranglehold on this Congress. And while we still have a little transparency into how much manufacturers and uh are are contributing to the research and development of new treatments and cures versus the simple marketing and repackaging of older drugs, this bill demands that hospitals report uh uh to be clear on that, we don't know enough about what Big Pharma pharma is doing and why it is devoting more to advertising than to helping us get new cures, but this bill is demanding great uh specificity from nonprofits and asking that they report on what value they derive from the three forty B pricing discounts using an an accurate comparative reference price that misleads and inflates what they're actually receiving. Requiring reporting on what discounts hospitals collect through three forty B was based on commercial insurance prices that have no bearing on what these hospitals actually receive through much lower group negotiated prices. This requirement in the bill serves only to exaggerate the claim that three forty B is a cash cow for non-profit hospitals. Meanwhile, the hospitals are rightfully required to use the modest funds from three forty B discounts to improve care to the underserved. Big Pharma has never been required to reinvest its unreasonable profits into R and D or lower prices or any other public benefit. The three forty B program is not perfect, and I would support some reforms, particularly with transparency, uh that I think could be improved. But an accurate analysis only undermines an important safety net program supporting our low income and uninsured consumers. And uh it's unfortunately that's a population of Americans that has grown substantially because of Republican sabotage of the affordable Obama care program, and trying to turn it into Trump-nothing care for millions of Americans. Indeed, reports out this week indicate that more than one of every ten Americans who has relied on the Marketplace to get their health insurance, and they did that last year, they no longer have it this year because of Republican policies. So I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure and I yield back.

Ms. Sewell is recognized to strike the last word.

Just one year ago, Republicans cut nearly one trillion dollars from our health care system in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and hospitals are carrying much of that burden. Now on top of those cuts, this bill would impose duplicative and burdensome reporting requirements on hospitals that are already struggling to keep their doors open. While this bill correctly recognizes that these requirements could be more burdensome for critical access hospitals and rural emergency hospitals, the bill fails to recognize that safety net and dish hospitals face many of those same financial pressures. As we speak, Jackson Hospital, just outside of my district in Montgomery, Alabama, is facing immediate closure. Under this bill, hospitals like Jackson would likely have to use limited resources to hire more accountants and compliance officers to navigate the red tape in this bill, instead of hiring new nurses and doctors or keeping their lights on. We should be making it easier for hospitals to keep their doors open, not harder. Since Republicans refused to extend the ACA subsidies last year, over twenty-two thousand Alabamians that once had health care have lost their health care. To add insult to injury, members received this l- this bill late last night, just twenty-six hours before today's mi- today's mark-up. That is simply not enough time t- for members or stakeholders to fully review legislation with consequences as significant as these. Issues as serious as these require a thoughtful legislative process and meaningful stakeholder engagement. I support efforts to increase transparency and lower health care costs, but this bill falls far short of that standard, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle on a better approach. But I must s- vote no on this current bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

For the members to strike the last word, Miss Chu is recognized for five minutes.

I move to strike the last word. I have to say I find today's mark-up incredibly frustrating. America's Americans are facing a health care affordability crisis. Across this country, families are making impossible choices every day. They are skipping prescriptions because they can't afford them. They're delaying doctor's appointments because they're worried about the bill. Millions of Americans are facing higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, and because of Republican policies, many are losing their health care altogether. And yet, what is this committee doing? We are debating whether non-profit hospitals should provide additional information on an IRS form. Non-profit hospitals already submit extensive information to the IRS to CMS and to the public. If Congress believes additional information is necessary, then we should be able to answer a simple question, how will any of this lower costs for patients? Does it lower the cost of a single prescription drug? Reduce a family's insurance premium? Lower a hospital bill? Does it help a single American keep their health care coverage? This legislation does none of those things. At a moment when hospitals are preparing to care for more uninsured patients and communities are struggling to keep health care within reach we're asking those hospitals to spend more time complying with new federal reporting requirements. This committee has the authority to tackle the real drivers of health care costs. We should be lowering prescription drug prices. We should be strengthening Medicare's ability to negotiate lower prices. We could be expanding access to affordable coverage. We could be helping families who are choosing between filling a prescription and paying their rent. That's what's so disappointing about today's mark-up. Every hour this committee spends on legislation that doesn't lower health care costs, is an hour we're not spending helping families who are worried about losing their coverage affording their prescriptions or paying their medical bills. We must do better than this. I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, Dr. Murphy is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I I appreciate all my my Democratic colleagues' um comments. Actually, it seems like they support it more than they don't like it, but they're just afraid to like it cuz it's Republican. Um, you know, I I I find this very interesting. I I appreciate all the different constituencies that, uh, were involved in writing and rewriting this bill, especially the American Hospital Association, because a lot of, uh, the carve-outs, a lot of things that we did were at, uh, their suggestions and their requests, which is great. I find it troublesome, actually really troublesome, uh, given the amount of fraud that's now being found out around the country, the, uh, what's going on in Minnesota, what's happened in Los Angeles, and all the different things, that we actually are gonna have folks that vote against transparency. This is no reason. Th- these are American taxpayer dollars. And I guys tell you, probably the only person on the dais here that's been involved in an active role, uh, being in part of hospital registration when I was chief of staff is uh, I had a gr- I had a great hospital system, a great non-profit hospital system that does a fantastic job. But we have some bad actors. Unless uh, a- as I said in my opening comments, Part of our job is oversight. And when we have bad actors, you guys talk about the billionaires and all this other stuff, look at some of the uh non-profit CEO compensation that goes around this country. This is a little bit uh disconcerting that we you guys are saying one thing and then attacking it in the same breath. Um, we have some real problems. And if we're not going to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars then we just need to walk away. And by the way, all this burdensome stuff Um, guys, they have the information already. And by the way, this is non-profit, non-taxed. All we're asking them to do is put it on the tax form. Put it on the tax form. And again, I'll say this again and again and again, it's very simple, it's fourth grade stuff, show your work. Let us all be reassured that the good actors are doing the good things, and if there are bad actors, they're the ones who are raising probably the most alarm. They're the ones who are probably raising the most alarm. And given the amount of quote " effort", I would submit this'll take probably about six or eight hours, um, from a hospital system to just move one data from in the other. Maybe a day or two. But boy, it's surely not gonna do anything to, uh, take down huge, massive CEO compensations. So, you know, I know this legislation does not save the whales. It does not do everything that is perfect, and they want it to do. I don't know what the hell it has to do with big pharma. This is no- has nothing to do with that. I don't know where that argument comes from. This is merely about transparency. And we want transparency in everything. We went after insurance companies. I'm happy for us to go after Big Pharma. Look, we talk about uh drug prices. Thank God President Trump has done what he's done to lower drug prices. Um, it's a big deal for the average American. And if nonprofits, we have some bad actors that are jacking up prices to do things that they shouldn't be doing that's something the American public needs to, That will lower prices. You know, hospital bills can be a lot. Things cost a lot in hospitals. But transparency is never a bad thing. Lot of fraud going on. We have a lot of carve-outs for those indi- those individual hospitals, um, that need it. But, um, this is long overdue as we look at our entire health care system because people cannot afford it and any avenue that we do should be a bipartisan effort to look at where we're spending money where we should not be spending money. And if it is in hospitals that are doing things, even if in three forty B program, which we don't have jurisdiction, but why not spread a little sunlight on that? Because there are some problems with the three forty B program. There are people who are abusing um the three forty B program in the country. So look, it's very easy. Show your work, and sunlight's the best disinfectant, and uh let's just uh let the American people know what's going on in a place where they have tax privilege status. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

Thank you. Any others wishing to strike the last word? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Mister Beyer.

Mister Beyer.

Mister Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Okay, I've, you would

Mister Chairman, I I reserve point of order.

Point of order has been reserved. Clerk will distribute the amendment and I ask uh the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes. The gentleman may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're at the last five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple, would exempt from these new administrative burdens any hospital that's facing funding or revenue cuts from the OBVBA I understand and share the appetite to get more data on the community benefits the hospitals provide I'm very sympathetic to what Doctor Murphy is trying to do um I too have been uh distraught at leaders of non-profit hospitals making three and six million dollars a year but and tax exempt status comes with concrete responsibility to provide care to the communities that rely on these hospitals, but it has to be done in a way that avoids unnecessarily adding to hospitals' administrative costs. And it cannot add to the severe challenges that my Republican friends have already imposed on these same hospitals. Last year, Congressional Republicans in the White House cut one trillion dollars to Medicaid. Those cuts, in addition to denying health care coverage to millions of people, will cut funding for many of our nation's most vulnerable hospitals. We're already seeing this severe impact on rural hospitals, A Harvard study found that eighty-five percent of the hospitals most threatened by the Republican health care cuts are actually located in urban areas. And those same hospitals are also facing new indirect costs from the big bill. We've seen millions of people lose health care covers over the past year, but they don't stop getting sick because they don't have insurance. They also don't stop going to the hospital and receiving care when they're there. Some hospitals are in financial situations where they can absorb that additional cost, cost, but many are not. And adding new administ administrative burdens and red tape is only going to add to the challenges for all of those hospitals. Implementing this bill will require them to spend more money that does not go directly to patient care. My colleagues understand that. That's why they're written in a narrow calvary already for some vulnerable hospitals. But these are not the only hospitals that are facing challenges. So my amendment is a common sta- common sense solution, devoting some more administrative costs to our most vulnerable hospitals. We have to be very careful when we propose requirements like this, that the cost to implement them doesn't translate to hospital closures or get transferred to patients' hospital bills. We can't risk further closures nor higher bills for patients. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Beier. I, I do want to, uh, present my objection to the amendment. Um, I want to remind folks that our legislation invested fifty billion dollars in rural health care uh through the working

Sorry, I'm

families tax cuts bill I I realized that the amendment is probably

going.

more of a messaging amendment uh than anything else but on a technical basis uh virtually impossible to enforce or detect what uh would trigger uh various action. So on on its uh drafting I I have concerns but certainly I think on the practical side of things fifty billion dollars invested uh in rural health care I think speaks for itself and it does represent the single largest investment in rural health care in more than twenty years and uh myself uh I represent a significantly rural constituency many critical access hospitals and I appreciate their communication um details and concerns and uh we wanna move forward in a productive fashion uh but certainly uh I would need to I I will need to object to the amendment here and urge a no vote. Thank you. Anyone uh wishing to s uh strike the last word on the amendment, speak on the amendment? Seeing none. She's

Yeah.

Uh, Ms. Moore. Uh, Ms. Moore is recognized for five minutes.

We'll just strike the last word. I'd like to deal my time, Mr. Breyer. Thank you, Congresswoman Moore. The only thing I'd say is this bill already exempts rural hospitals. What this amendment's trying to do is to get at the urban hospitals and the suburban hospitals, hard hit by the OBBA that are not exempted in this bill. So the the fifty billion dollar rural health care thing, I approve, I'm glad we've done that for rural hospitals. Those are not the ones at risk from from Doctor Murphy's bill. I yield back.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment and strike the last Seeing none. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mister Beier. All those in favor signify by saying yes.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. No.

No.

And depending on the chair, the no's have it. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

No.

Mister Buchanan. No. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith of Nebraska. No. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly. No. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert? No. Mr. Lohood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes? No. Mr. Schmucker. Mr. Hearn.

No.

Mr. Hearn? No. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, no. Mr. Kustof. Mr. Kustof, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Stubbe. Miss Tenney.

Yes, I'm sure she is.

Miss Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mister Moore. Miss Van Duyn.

No.

Miss Van Duyn, no. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, no. Mister Maliatakis. Mister Maliatakis, no. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, no. Mister Joachim. Mister Yockem, no. Mister Miller.

Mister O.

Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean.

Bean, no.

No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Moran, no. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett.

No.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Davis.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez, Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Miss S-

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu. Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Mister Beyer.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer.

Yeah.

Mister Beyer, yes.

Mister Beyer.

Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Yes.

No.

Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Gomez, yes. Mister Horsford. Mister Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Smucker.

I'm just gonna check. Mister Tom.

Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Moore.

No.

Mister Moore, no. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yeah.

Chairman Smith, no.

I'll call the record.

Mr. Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-one.

The ayes being sixteen, the noes being twenty one. The amendment is not adopted. Are there additional amendments? Miss Chu.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, am I reserved for an order?

Point of order has been reserved. If the gentlelady will suspend while the amendment is being distributed.

It's gonna be good, really It's really tough. It's not exciting. Yeah, I don't know why you can not go for it.

Yeah. Good.

And then meet up there at six, twenty eight, I think it's supposed to be at ten, ten, ten, ten hours.

The General Lady may proceed.

Mister Chair, if this committee is truly interested in transparency, then let's be transparent about the biggest driver of prescription drug costs in America, the prices charged by pharmaceutical companies. My amendment is simple. This bill requires hospitals to report information about the savings they receive through the three forty

I can't hear.

Uh, would the member suspend, please? I would ask all those present, uh, to take your conversations out in the hallway, uh, out of respect for the conversation happening and especially the introducer of the amendment, uh, Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, you may proceed.

This bill requires hospitals to report information about the savings they receive through the three forty.

Sure.

My amendment simply asks the secretary to use that same information to calculate how much those hospitals would have saved if pharmaceutical manufacturers charged Americans the same prices paid in other developed countries under a most favored nation benchmark. This is information Congress should have, because if we're going to scrutinize the discounts hospitals receive, we should also scrutinize the prices that makes those discounts necessary in the first place. The reality is that Americans pay three to four times more for many prescription drugs than patients in other developed countries. That's why programs like three forty B are so important. Safety net hospitals rely on those discounts to stretch limited resources and continue serving their communities. But instead of doing anything to lower drug prices, this committee is asking hospitals to fill out more paperwork. Democrats took historic action by allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, capping insulin prices at thirty-five dollars for Medicare enrollees, and lowering out-of-pocket health care costs. But we did it without a single Republican vote. We know there's more work to do. This amendment helps illustrate exactly why it doesn't require hospitals to collect any new information, It doesn't create any new reporting burden. It simply asks Treasury to calculate how much hospitals and the patients they serve could have saved if Americans paid the same fair prices that our peer nations pay for prescription drugs. If this committee truly wants transparency, then let's have transparency about the cost of America's sky-high drug prices. I urge adoption of my amendment and I yield back.

Thank you. Are those wishing to strike their last word speaking to the amendments? Doctor Murphy is recognized for five minutes.

Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, again, uh, I'm gonna say again like I've said a couple times before, the hospitals for the original bill are not making any new data, they're just putting it onto their tax form. And the issue with the three forty B program i- is not much how much hospitals uh, i- is primarily how much hospitals are charging patients. not how much they're paying for it. Um, I've, uh, I think it's, it's kind of interesting. I think it's kind of nice actually, uh, that we wanna talk about, um, you know, what the drug prices are charged in other countries, um, because Americans are paying way too much for drugs and, you know, I think the President's made some inroads on that. So, you know, I applaud my colleague f- for that. But again, let's get back to the issue of the three forty B program. It's about how much they're charging the patients, not how much they're paying for the drugs. So I would just Say hey happy to work on this, but I don't think this is ready for prime time as far as what this uh this bill goes. You're back.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to strike the last words? Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Chu, all those in favor say signify by saying yes.

Aye.

Uh say all those opposed say no. No.

No.

Depending on the chair, the no's have it. Call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

No.

Mister Buchanan, no. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister LaHood. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stuebe. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney? No. Misses Fischbach. Misses Fischbach? No. Mister Moore. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn? No. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra? No. Miss Malia Tauchis. Mister Kerry. Mister Kerry, no. Mister Yockem.

No.

Mister Yockem, no. Mister Miller.

No.

Mister Miller, no. Mister Bean.

No. No.

Mister Bean, no. Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Moran, no. Mister Neal. Mister Doggett. Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Aye.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chiu. Miss Chiu, yes. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Yes.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beier.

Yes.

Mister Beier, yes. Mister Evans. Mister Schneider. Mister Panetta.

Yes.

Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Gomez? Yes. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Mister LaHood. Mister Arrington. Mister Smucker. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Moore.

Hey.

Mister Moore, no. Miss Mayotakis. Miss Mayotakis, no. Mister Neal.

Neal.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Evans. Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider,

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Horsford, Mister Plaskett, Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith, now.

Clerk, clerk will record.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are sixteen and the noes are twenty-one.

There being sixteen ayes and twenty-one nays, the amendment is not adopted. Are there additional amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Doggett?

Mister Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Point of order has been reserved. Gentleman will suspend while the amendment is being distributed.

Good chart. Good to go. Yep.

You may proceed.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, uh, this bill and the Republican majority are today targeting tax-exempt hospitals. What they should be concerned with is a tax-exempt president. My amendment is really straightforward. It provides that this bill shall not take effect until two sets, two acts of self-dealing by the administration are undone, the president's one point eight billion dollar slush fund and the secret addendum that grants him and his family immunity from IRS audit. I'm not against transparency. This bill significantly expands the reporting requirements for hospitals, and I understand that. But it's important that we address the real issue here about President Trump. You know, it's interesting, we've had within the last day or two a financial disclosure statement of two point two billion dollars that the President's uh earned apparently last year, while he served as our Commander-in-Chief. What those stories don't reveal is whether he's gonna pay a dime of taxes on those uh, earnings. Uh, he, we know that in a number of prior years, uh, he had profitable operations and paid seven hundred and fifty dollars in taxes two years in a row. And in another year he didn't pay a dime. That's why it was under audit. And so, uh, we know of the slush fund here that it was one negotiated with a man who was recently his criminal defense attorney And that second in addition to the slush fund is his immunity agreement. He brought a ten billion dollar lawsuit against himself uh over the fact that there was disclosure uh of some of his tax returns. That was done by a government contractor named Charles Little John, who unlawfully disclosed the tax returns of thousands of Americans, including the presidents. It was wrong. And when other victims of that same leak Sued, the government's lawyers argued that the IRS was not liable precisely because little little John was a contractor and not an employee of the IRS. Also of note is the fact that all this occurred under President Trump's administration during his first time of office, it was his IRS that was in charge. Yet somehow out of that case about a contractor's leak, the president's former lawyer produced an addendum barring the IRS from ever auditing or pursuing the president or his family for returns they filed. And that would include any return that they filed on that two point two billion dollars from last year. For years, the president told the American people he just couldn't release his returns because they were under audit. That was a lie. Nothing in the law prevents any taxpayer from releasing returns under audit, as Richard Nixon did. Every president for a half a century has released returns. And under our democratic majority, this committee investigated whether the IRS was actually auditing the president and we learned that though there is a mandatory presidential audit program in law after Richard Nixon's violations, we learned that there was one partially contributed completed audit, and that in four years of the Trump presidency, the law was basically ignored. Before the president became uh came into office, an audit was already underway on questionable claims he had made go dating back to two thousand ten, claims that involve millions of dollars. It is the it is that audit that the president would have ended through this deal with his former criminal defense lawyer. Uh, the New York Times has now reported that it may be worth a hundred million dollars But, you know, just applying it to last year's earnings, the figure could jump significantly. Two point two billion dollars off earned while he served as president. More than six hundred million from the meme coin that he launched days before his second inauguration. And five hundred million from token sales by world financial, uh, these are the very kind of novel transactions, complex, self-dealing, digital tokens licensing agreements, that a serious IRS audit which is required by law, but it largely ignored during the first four years of the Trump presidency, that you need to scrutinize to see that this president is dealing with the American people correctly. No, we know he is a president who's boasted that he's smart by evading taxes. We know that the audit has not been completed in the past. It's time to assure that uh the indefensible does not occur. And I think the total failure today of Republican members to engage in debate to defend this deal, shows that is it in fact totally indefensible, this amendment should be adopted quickly. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?

Yes.

Uh, does the sponsor of the amendment uh wish to be heard on the point of order?

Mister Speaker, uh, I d- uh, Mister, uh, Chairman, I do. Uh, I understand the desire to avoid, uh, any, uh, evaluation of this president. The, uh, committee has a history of doing all it could to suppress access to any of his tax returns for a number of years during his first term of office. Uh, I think this amendment is directly germane to what's involved here, that we're talking about nonprofits, tax-exempt entities, And this president is seeking to be a tax-exempt entity. Uh, this is an opportunity to, uh, simply have an audit continue of, uh, all of the money that he has avoided paying as any other taxpayer would have to do. Uh, and so certainly I hope that the chair will not sustain a point of order that simply allows evading this committee's responsibility to hold the president accountable.

Thank you. Uh, to the gentlemen, I am prepared to rule that the amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained. The amendment, uh, i- is not germane to the underlying resolution and amendment is not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill contingent upon an unrelated event or determination the condition imposed by this amendment is unrelated to the subject matter of the underlying resolution which is specific to tax exempt hospital reporting therefore the amendment is not germane. And the order stands.

Mister Chairman, uh, because it is such an important matter to the confidence of our tax system, I would appeal the ruling of the chair.

The gentleman moves to appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mister Chairman, I move to table.

There's a motion to table, call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

No.

Mister Buchanan.

I mean yes, yes, yes.

Yes. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweiker. Mister LaHood. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker.

Yes.

Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn. Misses Miller. Misses Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Yeah. Mister Stubbe. Yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney. Yes. Mrs. Fischbach. Yeah. Mrs. Fischbach. Yes. Mister Moore.

Oh, are we doing that?

No. Wake up. Yes, yes, yes.

Mister Moore. Yes. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn. Yes, Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Feenstra, yes. Miss Malia Takis. Miss Malia Takis, yes. Mr. Kerry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Kerry, yes. Mr. Yackem. Yes. Mr. Yackem, yes. Mr. Miller. Yeah. Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Moran, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Neal. Well Mr. Neal, no. Mister Doggett. No. Mister Doggett, no. Mister Thompson. No. Mister Thompson, no. Mister Larson. No. Mister Larson, no. Mister Davis. No. Mister Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. No. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell.

No.

No. Miss Sewell, no. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chiu. Miss Chu, no. Miss Moore. Miss Moore, no. Mr. Boyle.

No.

Mr. Boyle, no. Mr. Beier.

No.

Mr. Beier, no. Mr. Evans.

No.

Mr. Evans, no. Mr. Schneider.

No. No.

Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, no. Mr. Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert? Yes. Mister Lohood. Mister Errington.

Why you guys had to stick with this?

Mister Hearn.

Yeah, you're good.

Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof? Yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swazi. Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith? Yes.

Clerk will record.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-two and the noes are fifteen.

There being twenty-two yeses and fifteen noes, the motion is tabled. Are there additional amendments? Mister Thompson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

There's amendment at the desk and there is a a point of order has been reserved. Gentleman will suspend while the amendment is distributed.

What do they have for dinner by here?

some kind of shorter, but there's tougher than I can check out.

Oh, OK. That's all there. Better dine, wine and dine in a Walworth cafeteria.

Yeah, I wouldn't, I didn't do it over again.

Oh, I need to get a dog, you know. That's all, well, to stay in the wild.

Yeah. I'm truncating my stuff. Cuz I'm considerate of those who are trying to fly out.

Probably cool in California.

I mean

Maybe it's cool in California. Cooler than here. Texas weather. Cooler than here. Texas weather. Something to this climate crisis. You're probably wanting to go up to the great americans and say, " That is horrible." Have you been down by mall? What a mess. You ready?

Mr. Thompson is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my amendment requires that uh this legica- this legislation not take effect until the American taxpayers are reimbursed for any taxpayer funds spent on the construction of the White House ballroom. Mr. Chairman, the American people are already facing an affordability crisis. Families are struggling to pay for groceries, struggling to fill up their gas tanks, struggling to afford housing, and to keep up with the cost of health care. At the same time, the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a lavish ballroom at the White House. We were told that this project would be privately funded, yet public reporting indicates that at least three hundred million dollars in taxpayer funds have been already spent on this project. Mister Chairman, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a Washington Post article detailing the use of taxpayer dollars for this project.

Not objection, so ordered.

Thank you, mister Chairman. Those taxpayer dollars should be helping lower costs for American families, not subsidizing an unnecessary lavish ballroom. If this ballroom is truly being financed by private donations, then there should be no objection to reimbursing taxpayers and providing full transparency about who those donors are. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Buchanan is recognized.

I ma- I make a point of order to against the amendment. The amendment is not germane to the underlying l- underlying resolution, an effective non-germane if it's made effectively uh of a

You're making

bill contingent upon the unrelated events or determination. The condition imposed by this amendment is unrelated to this subject matter, of underlying resolution which is specific to the tax exempt hospital reporting. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and I urge the chair to sustain the point of order.

Does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order?

This is a sermon, I'm shocked.

The gentleman is shocked.

For the record. For the record.

For the record, that's right. I am prepared to rule the amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order. Are there additional amendments?

Miss Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mister Chairman, I reserve point of order.

Point of order has been reserved,

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Mister Duggett, if you'll suspend while the amendment is being distributed.

Thank you.

I gotta use the headboard, or Oh, that's right. See if we can beat Mike on it. Uh, this could take a little longer. We'll get in at five. The gentleman may proceed.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, the Republican disastrous cuts to Medicaid are estimated to result in the closing or reduction in service of four hundred and forty-six hospitals across the country. Uh, they now offer a bill that once again targets the facilities in America that do the most to serve uh lower income Americans. Uh, Republicans seem obsessed with tax exempt organizations, except of course for the Trump organization. As to nonprofits, they've assailed the organizations defending access to the ballot box, combating injustice, protecting our planet, and their latest target, facilities delivering health care, to vulnerable families. Meanwhile, Republicans ignore for-profit facilities and the private equity firms that are quickly gobbling up hospitals physician practices, nursing homes where they've been devastating, and more. We need more transparency in health care, but this bill's oversight of the role of private equity is a missed opportunity. My amendment is simple. It simply ensures a more complete picture by requiring transparency into where our care dollars are going in private equity owned facilities. These uh facilities uh have more than doubled in the last five years. By twenty twenty-four, private equity investments had ballooned to a hundred and four billion dollars in a single year with nearly a third of for-profit hospitals owned by private equity. The result has been more debt, bankruptcies, closures, staff layoffs, and less quality of care at a greater price. In twenty twenty-three, more than twenty percent of health care bankruptcies were owned by private equity as short-term investments, and nearly ninety percent of health entities at high risk of default have been bought by private equity. This puts consumers at immense risk in communities that lose access to what is perhaps their only hospital or health care facility. Private equity is fueling consolidation with a single firm owning half of physicians in uh thirteen percent of metropolitan areas. This consolidation in misaligned incentives of private equity owners that are not focused on delivering quality health care is causing higher prices and declining quality. One review of these PE owned facilities found increased consumer cost in nine out of ten cases and no decreases anywhere. Another study found that hospital prices increased by almost a third after private equity in the eighties. Meanwhile, other studies have found private equity owned hospitals and nursing homes have fewer staff increased infections and patient falls and higher mortality rates compared to their non-P E counterparts. In one of the most egregious examples, a private equity firm, Leonard Green, purchased Prospect Medical, a five hospital system in Southern California. That deal was primarily financed by debt. Through more debt financed expansion, Prospect grew to sixteen hospitals in five states, including my home state of Texas. Quality of care deteriorated, services were reduced, facilities closed, and some c- communities lost their only hospital. Last year, Prospect filed for bankruptcy with two point three billion dollars in debt, but the investors received over half a billion dollars in dividends and stock redemptions. It's just not right, it's not fair, and it deprives uh many communities of the health care they so desperately need. It's time to lift the hood on private equity. My amendment would simply require the secretary to promulgate regulations concerning PE ownership of health facilities, including information regarding debt payments, owner-lease property addresses, amounts paid for debt secured by real estate, and rental payments. I urge its adoption in yield bank.

Gentleman yields back. Mister Herndon is recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, my Democrat colleagues are very concerned about private equity and, um, has been widely reported year over year over year over year that tax exempt hospitals actually spend less on charity than for-profit hospitals. In fact, the majority of non-profit hospitals receive more tax payer subsidies than they return in community benefits according to the non-partisan Loan Institute. And out of respect for my colleagues across the aisle, I won't mention this particular hospital by name, but um one significantly sized hospital, uh had a tax exempt estimated to be worth tax exemption estimated to be worth more than four hundred million dollars annually yet it has invested a mere ninety million in its community resulting in what the loan institute called a, quote, fair share deficit, end quote, of more than three hundred and twenty-five million dollars each year. Uh, Democrat colleagues may have concerns about private equity, and I know many of My Republicans do as well. But non-profit hospitals have escaped serious transparency for way too long, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back.

Thank you. Do others wish to strike the last word? Mister Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield uh my time to Mister Duggan.

Gentlemen recognized.

Well, I want to acknowledge uh Mister Hearn uh for his defense of private equity. Uh, there's no doubt that there are some circumstances uh, where private equity plays a priv- a positive role, but it has not played a particularly positive role in the health care area. And as I mentioned, the result has been higher cost, lower quality care, loss of hospitals that a community is relying on, and devastation for many nursing homes. But there's something also noteworthy about his presentation today. Uh, Republicans, every Republican on this committee has remained one hundred percent silent about the whole concept of the tax-exempt presidency, about the corrupt audit deal that was negotiated between Trump and himself and his criminal defense lawyer. This is wrong. It undermines confidence in our entire tax system when the Commander-in-Chief can avoid any audit, any responsibility, and claim to be smart by evading taxes. He may well have been granted an exemption on the two point two billion dollars that he allegedly earned this past year, we don't know if he'll pay a dime of taxes on any or all of those earnings, making them all the more uh an indication of the corruption that sou- that that surrounds that administration, where regardless of the country or the interest around the world, we find the Trump organization with a hand in the till. The public uh cannot have confidence in a corrupt administration of this type. Uh, I urge adoption of this amendment about private equity, but I think it is noteworthy of the committee's unwillingness to debate uh the merits of the corruption surrounding this administration and particularly, its evasion of taxes. I yield back.

Gentleman y- Gentleman yields back. Others wishing to strike the last word. Seeing none, clerk, call the roll.

Mister Buchanan. Mister Smith of Nebraska.

No.

Mister Smith of Nebraska, no. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, no. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, no. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Esses. Mister Esses, no. Mister Smucker. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, no. Mrs. Miller.

No.

Mrs. Miller, no. Doctor Murphy. Doctor Murphy, no. Mister Kustof.

No.

Mister Kustof, no. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe. No. Mister Tenney. Mister Tenney. No. Mister Fischbach. Mister Fischbach. No. Mister Moore. Mister Moore. No. Mister Van Duyn. Mister Van Duyn. No. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra. No. Mister Malia Takis. Miss Maliatakis, no. Mr. Carey, Mr. Carey, no. Mr. Yockem,

No.

Mr. Yockem, no. Mr. Miller.

No.

Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean,

Who?

Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran,

No.

Mr. Moran, no. Mr. Neal, Mr. Neal, yes.

Who's

Mr. Doggett, Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson.

not?

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson,

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Sanchez. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene.

Aye.

Miss Del Bene, yes.

Yeah.

Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer.

Yes.

Mister Beyer, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta.

Yes.

Mister Panetta, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister Buchanan. Mister Buchanan, no. Mister LaHood. Mister Arrington. Mister Smucker.

Done.

Mister Smucker. No. Mister Fitzpatrick?

No.

Mister Fitzpatrick? No. Mister Davis?

I'm

Mister Davis? Yes. Mister Gomez? Mister Horsford? Miss Plaskett? Mister Swazi? Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith, no.

Clerk record.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are fifteen and the noes are twenty-four.

The yeses being fifteen and the noes being twenty-four, the amendment is not Are there additional amendments? If there are no further amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed nay.

No. No.

In opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R ninety five O four as amended. to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety-five O four as amended to the House of Representatives. Clerk, call the roll.

Mister Buchanan.

Yes.

Mister Buchanan, yes. Mister Smith-Nebraska.

Yes.

Mister Smith-Nebraska, yes. Mister Kelly. Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker.

Yeah.

Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yeah.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Pi- Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yeah.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, yes. Mister Van Duyn. Mister Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Mister Feenstra, yes. Mister Malia Takis. Mister Malia Takis, yes. Mr. Carey.

Yes.

Mr. Carey, yes. Mr. Yacoum.

Yes.

Mr. Yacoum, yes. Mr. Miller.

Yes.

Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean.

Yes.

Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran.

Yes.

Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Neal, no. Mr. Doggett. Mr. Doggett, no. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, no. Miss Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, no. Miss Sewell. No. Miss Sewell, no. Miss Del Bene. No.

No.

Miss Del Bene, no. Miss Chiu. No. Miss Chiu, no. Miss Moore. No. Miss Moore, no. Mr. Boyle.

No.

Mr. Boyle, no. Mr. Beier.

No. No.

Mr. Beier, no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, no. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington.

Yes, yes.

Mister Errington, yes. Mister Evans. Mister Evans, no. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Slosy. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

Would the clerk re- uh, the clerk report the vote?

Mister Chairman, the yeses are twenty-five and the noes are fifteen.

There being twenty-five yeses and fifteen noes, the motion is agreed to in H R nine five O four, as amended, is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R nine five O four and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H R ninety-four ninety-nine, the Protecting Taxpayers from Ghost Preparers Act. Introduced by Representative Malay Takis. Representative Malay Takis has spent years combating fraud and protecting taxpayers, having seen individuals and families in her own district become victims of these same crimes. Last year she fought to ensure that taxpayers who refund checks are lost or stolen can get the money that they are owed without additional hurdles. I appreciate her continued leadership on this front and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I'm pleased to recognize the

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

I'm pleased that my legislation, H R nine four nine nine, the Protecting Taxpayers from Ghost Preparers Act, is before the committee today. This legislation takes an important step in ensuring that taxpayers who are victims of preparer fraud are not unfairly punished for actions they did not commit. Unfortunately, over the past several years we have seen too many cases of dishonest tax preparers, exploiting, hardworking, Americans, senior citizens and other vulnerable taxpayers who are simply just trying to pay their taxes. In Kentucky this past April, two individuals pleaded guilty to operating a major tax preparation fraud scheme. Between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty one, they prepared nearly six thousand fraudulent federal tax returns, causing more than ten million dollars in tax losses to the IRS, while collecting more than seven hundred thousand dollars. in fees from their unsuspecting clients. In my own state of New York, an individual in Long Island pleaded guilty to nearly twelve million dollar tax fraud scheme. They prepared fraudulent tax returns, charged clients more than one million in fees, including a percentage of their refunds, and they put innocent taxpayers at risk while enriching themselves. And in twenty twenty five, an individual in the Bronx was sentenced to four years in prison. for orchestrating a decade-long, one hundred and forty-five million dollar tax fraud scheme. He oversaw the filing of tens of thousands of false tax returns, generating approximately twelve million dollars in fraudulent proceeds. These are not isolated incidents. Across the country, ghost preparers continue to file fraudulent returns and skim money from taxpayers' refunds, leaving the taxpayer on the hook to deal with the consequences. Under current law, when a ghost preparer commits fraud without the taxpayer's knowledge, it can leave an innocent taxpayer subject to an indefinite statute of limitations, even though the taxpayer had no intent to invade their tax obligations. My bill addresses this gap in the law by clarifying that the unlimited statute of limitations for fraudulent tax returns applies only when the taxpayer intended to commit fraud not when a dishonest tax preparer acted It's a simple, easy, common sense bill that protects taxpayers who have been victimized by fraud. And I also want to say that this is just a small piece of uh the puzzle. We have a lot more work to do and I know my colleagues, Representative Stubbe and Panetta have been working also very diligently on this issue. And I know, Mister Chairman, that after we pass this bill today, which I hope we'll pass with u- unanimous bipartisan support, I think that we're gonna be able to do a lot more uh altogether in a bipartisan manner to address this issue and go after these fraudsters and make sure that they're being held accountable. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize uh Mister Pineda from California for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I appreciate that, and thanks to Miss Malia Takis and the committee's attention uh to the issue of ghost preparers as uh I have long advocated for uh action on this topic. I also want to thank Chairman Smith Uh, thank you for the steps taken today to address the concerns raised by myself and Mister Stubbe about previous provisions that were in the bill prior to the amendment. Now, this current legislation uh by Miss Malitakis advances an important provision to ensure that when tax p- preparers commit fraud, unwitting taxpayers are not targeted by the IRS decades after the case. Currently, there is no statute of limitations on tax assessments for taxpayers, whose preparers file a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade taxes. That means that decades later, taxpayers can be subject to IRS enforcement action, even though they had no idea that their preparer filed fraudulently. They do not benefit from the three-year statute of limitations for mistakes and returns filed without intent to evade tax. Now, this bill also takes the important step of shifting the responsibility from the taxpayer to the preparer being paid to file returns. We still need to pass legislation to establish basic professional standards for tax preparers and ensure that the IRS can enforce those standards. I do hope to work with the committee on those issues in the future. However, this bill is a very positive step forward. I appreciate Ms. Malitakis for this, and I and I support this bill. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote yes to ensure that innocent taxpayers are not indefinitely exposed to IRS enforcement actions when the wrongdoing was committed by a third party preparer without the taxpayers' knowledge and with that Mister Chairman I thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, the committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety four ninety nine, the protecting taxpayers from ghost preparers act. Without objection the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed

Mister Chairman, Mister Chairman, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents, the members of the committee have before them two joint committee documents J C X twenty-four, J C X twenty-four, and JCX thirty-one, which describe HR nine four nine nine and your amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment in the nature of substitute makes uh a clerical correction to the underlying legislation, uh and it really consists of three components. In section two, the provision ensures that preparer penalties apply to both valid filings made by taxpayers and to documents submitted that do not meet the criteria to be treated as a valid return. This provision would be effective upon the date of enactment, and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this provision would raise approximately five million dollars over the budget period of fiscal twenty twenty-seven through fiscal uh twenty thirty-six. The next component of the legislation resolves a discordant dis- resolves discordant judicial rulings by restricting the authority of the internal revenue to extend the period of limitations with respect to fraud to those cases in which the taxpayer is alleged to be the person committing the fraud. This provision would be effective for assessments and proceedings, uh, initiated after the date of enactment, and this would result, uh, in an estimated revenue loss of approximately two million dollars over the twenty-twenty-seven to twenty-thirty-six, uh, fiscal year budget period. Lastly, uh the legislation makes a technical correction to the disaster related extension of deadlines act. It would, this technical correction, as with uh all technical corrections generally passed out of this committee, would be effective, retroactive to the date of uh enactment of that act. Uh that includes my brief description of this legislation. I'd be happy to answer questions that the members might have.

Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment and the nature of Seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. Does any member wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, we will move to amendments, and I recognize myself for an amendment. When a

So, I'm an amateur reporter, aren't I?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Um, when a, when a fraudulent return is filed with the intent to evade tax, the IRS can access even beyond the three year statute of limitations. Unfortunately for honest taxpayers, that intent is currently not tied to their actions. Fraudsters and ghost preparers can intentionally file fraudulent returns on behalf of the taxpayer without their knowledge. In doing so, they leave that honest taxpayer on the hook when the IRS comes to access, even if it if it's decades later. This bill corrects that issue, requiring that the limitation on the statute of limitation only applies to cases where the taxpayer themselves filed a filed a fraudulent return with intent to evade tax and and pulls honest taxpayers out of the equation. Section two of this legislation was added to the bill to expand the definitions of tax returns to be identical to language in the Senate TAS Act that would insure as many ghost preparers are captured by this bill. Um, With still ongoing items that's resolved, um, both sides are insisting on including additional provisions, um, regarding paid pr- prepares that were not intended to be part of Miss Talia- Malayotakis's bill. In an effort to ensure we continue moving these tax administration bills in a bipartisan fashion, I'm offering this amendment to strike section two. Um, Representative Malayotakis, has spent years combating fraud and protecting taxpayers. Having seen individuals and and families in our own district become victims of these same crimes. Last year she fought to ensure that taxpayers who refund checks are lost or stolen can get the money that they're all owed without additional hurdles. I appreciate her continued bipartisan leadership on this front and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Any member wish to strike the last word on the amendment? Seen

Well, there's a point of order. I just wanted you to know that I still love you, Mister Thompson.

I love you too, Mister Thompson. Thank you. I wanna make sure you get your flight. So, um Um, will the clerk call the roll?

Mister Buchanan.

Yes.

Mister Buchanan? Yes. Mister Smith of Nebraska. Mister Kelly.

Yep.

Mister Kelly, yes. Mister Schweikert. Mister Schweikert, yes. Mister Lohut. Mister Arrington. Mister Estes. Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yeah.

Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy. Mister Kustof.

Yes.

Mister Kustof,

Arjan.

yes. Mister Fitzpatrick.

Yes.

Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe.

Yes.

Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney.

Yes.

Miss Tenney, yes. Misses Fischbach.

Yes.

Misses Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Mister Moore? Yes. Miss Van Duyn? Miss Van Duyn? Yes. Mister Feenstra? Mister Feenstra? Yes. Miss Maliatakis? Miss Maliatakis? Yes. Mister Kerry?

Yes.

Mister Kerry? Yes. Mister Joachim?

Yes.

Mister Joachim? Yes. Mister Miller? Mister Bean?

Yes.

Mister Bean? Yes. Mister Moran?

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal. Mister Doggett.

Yes.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Aye. Aye.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Mister Sanchez. Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene.

Aye.

Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle.

Aye.

Mister Boyle, yes. Mister Beyer.

Yes.

Mister Beyer, yes. Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider.

Yes.

Mister Schneider, yes. Mister Panetta. Mister Panetta, yes. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mr. Swazi. Mr. Smith-Nebraska.

Yes.

Mr. Smith-Nebraska, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Dr. Murphy.

Mister Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy? Yes. Mister Miller. Mister Neal.

Yes.

Mister Neal, yes. Mister Larson.

What's that?

Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith? Yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are thirty-seven and the noes are zero.

There being thirty-seven yeses and zero noes, the amendment is adopted. Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H R ninety-four ninety-nine as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety-four ninety-nine as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes.

Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Schmucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn. Mister Hearn, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes. Mister Kustof. Mister Kustof, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stubbe. Mister Stubbe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Mister Moore? Yes. Mister Van Duyn?

Yes.

Mister Van Duyn? Yes. Mister Feenstra? Mister Feenstra? Yes. Mister Maliatakis? Mister Maliatakis? Yes. Mister Kerry?

Yes.

Mister Kerry? Yes. Mister Joachim?

Yes.

Mister Joachim? Yes. Mister Miller?

Yes.

Mister Miller? Yes. Mister Bean?

Yes.

Mister Bean? Yes. Mister Moran?

Yes.

Mister Moran? Yes. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett. Mister Thompson. Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson.

Yes.

Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis.

Yes.

Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell. Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene. Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu, Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore, Miss Moore, yes. Mister Boyle, Mister Boyle, yes.

Yes.

Mister Beier, Mister Beier, yes.

Yes. Mister Beier?

Mister Evans,

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes. Mister Schneider, Mister Schneider, yes.

Yes.

Mister Panetta, Mister Panetta, yes.

Yes.

Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Mister LaHood. Mister Errington.

Yes.

Mister Errington, yes.

Yes.

Mister Doggett.

Yes.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith, yes.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the yeses are forty and the noes are zero.

There being forty yeses and zero noes, the motion is agreed to in H R ninety-four ninety-nine as amended. is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to HR ninety-four ninety-nine and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is HR ninety-four ninety-eight, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act, introduced by Representative Stubbe and Del Bene. With this legislation, Representative Stubbe is building on his record as a tireless advocate for American taxpayers. This important reform to current law follows on the hills of previous efforts he has made including the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act, which the House approved last year with unanimous consent. Legislation that not surprisingly reflects recommendations of the na- national taxpayer advocate. I applaud Representative Stubbe's continued leadership on this front, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mister Stubbe, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity for me to speak today in support of HR nine four nine eight the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act or TAPPA. When a federal court is deciding a case that may affect the rights of many or all taxpayers it would benefit all for the national taxpayer advocate to submit an amicus brief to share her views as the voice of the taxpayer. However, under current law the NTA is not authorized to submit amicus briefs in a federal tax. This bill is a narrow, common sense fix. It would allow the national taxpayer advocate to appear as amicus curiae in federal tax cases but only to present views on issues that may broadly affect the rights of taxpayers. This authority is expected to be used sparingly, similar to the authority exercised by the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy. The office of the taxpayer advocate already plays an important role in helping taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS. identifying systematic issues in tax administration, and making recommendations to Congress. The National Taxpayer Advocate is also required to report annually to Congress on the most litigated tax issues and ways to mitigate those disputes. It makes sense that in appropriate cases the advocate should be able to share the taxpayer-focused expertise with federal courts. I'm thankful that the committee is facilitating bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting taxpayer rights and ensuring that courts can hear from an independent office whose mission is to identify and protect taxpayers from systematic problems in tax administration. I'm also thankful that this bill's been endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National Taxpayer Union, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Intuit, Sixty Plus Association, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. This is a bipartisan effort and I'm honored to work with Representative Del Binney because protecting taxpayers and improving their right to representation should not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support H R nine four nine eight, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act, and I yield back.

I now recognize the ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, let me yield my time to the gentlelady from Washington State, Miss DelBene.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, and to the ranking member, and thank you to my colleague, Mr. Stubbe, who's been a great partner on this bill. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act would ensure that the national taxpayer advocate is able to advocate on behalf of taxpayers when a court decision may affect their fundamental rights. The National Taxpayer Advocate is often referred to as the voice of the taxpayer because they assist taxpayers in resolving problems with the IRS, identifying systemic issues and making legislative recommendations to Congress, based on their extensive experience. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act is a result of one of those recommendations. Under current law, the NTA is not authorized to submit amic- and share her views, meaning that no one is representing the interests of taxpayers as a group in cases that could impact those rights. H R ninety- four ninety-eight addresses this gap by authorizing the National Taxpayer Advocate to submit amicus briefs in federal tax litigation ensuring that the voices of taxpayers are heard. This bill is a targeted common sense measure to ensure taxpayers' voices are heard and reinforces fairness, transparency and accountability in our tax system. Um, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back.

Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H R ninety-four ninety-eight, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point.

Mister Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the uh members of the committee have uh before them two joint committee documents, the uh members of the committee have uh before them two joint committee documents JCX twenty-two and JCX twenty-nine, JCX twenty-two and JCX twenty-nine, which describe which describe HR ninety-four, H R ninety-four, ninety-eight, ninety-eight, and your amendment in the nature of a substitute. and your amendment in the nature of a substitute. Your amendment in the nature of a substitute uh makes a modest clerical change in the underlying uh text. By way of background, under present law uh it is generally the case that only officers of the Department of Justice may represent the United States in litigation. One such uh limited exemption is that the IRS Chief Counsel represents the Secretary of the Treasury in litiga- litigation before the Tax Court. This legislation, in the amendment in nature of a substitute, authorizes the national taxpayer advocate to appear as amicus curiae uh in any action before a court of the United States related to federal tax law with respect to issues affecting the rights of taxpayers. Uh, this legislation would be effective upon the date of enactment. Uh, our staff has estimated it would have a negligible effect on federal receipts over the uh budget period fiscal years twenty twenty seven through twenty thirty six uh that concludes my brief uh description I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have

thank you are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute seeing none does anyone wish to strike the last word seeing none are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute That's wonderful. The qu- the question is on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mister Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move the committee favorab Mister Chairman, I move the uh that the committee favorably report HR ninety four ninety eight as amended to the House of Representatives.

The question is on the mo- the question is on the motion to favorably report H R ninety four ninety eight as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Buchanan.

Yes.

Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith, Nebraska. Mr. Smith, Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikart. Mister Schweikart, yes. Mister Lohut. Mister Errington. Mister Estes.

Yes.

Mister Estes, yes. Mister Smucker. Mister Smucker, yes. Mister Hearn.

Yes.

Mister Hearn, yes. Miss, Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller, yes.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy.

Yes.

Doctor Murphy, yes.

Yeah.

Mister Custolph. Mister Custolph, yes. Mister Fitzpatrick. Mister Fitzpatrick, yes. Mister Stuebe. Mister Stuebe, yes. Miss Tenney. Miss Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mister Moore. Mister Moore, yes. Miss Van Duyn. Miss Van Duyn, yes. Mister Feenstra. Miss Maliatakis. Miss Maliatakis, yes. Mister Kerry.

Yes.

Mister Kerry, yes. Mister Yacoum. Mister Yacoum, yes. Mister Miller.

Yes, I'm good. Yes.

Mister Miller, yes. Mister Bean. Mister Bean, yes. Mister Moran.

Yes.

Mister Moran, yes. Mister Neal. Mister Neal, yes. Mister Doggett.

Aye. Yes.

Mister Doggett, yes. Mister Thompson.

Aye.

Mister Thompson, yes. Mister Larson. Mister Larson, yes. Mister Davis. Mister Davis, yes. Miss Sanchez.

Aye.

Miss Sanchez, yes. Miss Sewell.

Aye.

Miss Sewell, yes. Miss Del Bene.

Aye.

Miss Del Bene, yes. Miss Chu.

Miss Chu.

Aye.

Miss Chu, yes. Miss Moore.

Aye.

Smith-Moore, yes, Mister Boyle. Mister Boyle, yes, Mister Beyer.

The guilty don't run.

Yes.

Mister Beyer, yes.

Cody, we're done.

Mister Evans.

Yes.

Mister Evans, yes, Mister Schneider.

If you want guilty.

Mister Schneider, yes, Mister Panetta. Mr. Panetta, yes. Mr. Gomez.

Thank you.

Mr. Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mr. Swazi. Mr. Lahood. Mr. Arrington.

Yes.

Mr. Arrington, yes. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Gomez. Mister Horsford. Miss Plaskett. Mister Swasey. Chairman Smith.

Yes.

Chairman Smith. Yes.

Why does everyone leave so quickly? I still just wanna care more. Seriously. But I should've said no already.

Yeah, I guess we have to.

The clerk will report the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the yeses are thirty-nine and the noes are zero.

There being thirty-nine yeses and zero noes, the motion is agreed to and H R ninety-four ninety-eight, as amended, is ordered favorably reported to the House.

Your cross-law.

Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H R ninety-four, ninety-eight, and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk, supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views. There being no further business before the committee,

All right, hey, go ahead.