Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY

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

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi is not alone. Democrat after Democrat on this committee and in this Congress made it clear years ago that they were targeting President Trump to try to force his tax returns to be made public, even though the law doesn't require it at all and, as was revealed in our committee hearing, it has nothing to do with the Presidential audits. In fact, in our markup, again and again, we heard from Members who said we must force these private tax returns to be made public so we can see his dealings, so we can see his taxes, so we can criticize. Nothing to do with the Presidential audit process. That is our concern today, that under the new standard that has been set, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, two individuals in Congress, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of Senate Finance Committee, will have nearly unlimited power, with almost any excuse, to obtain, to investigate, and to make public those very private tax returns. We are not alone in our concerns. Other scholars have made the point that we have a voluntary tax system and that if Americans don't believe and can't trust that their tax returns won't be kept private, if they have to worry that if they end up on the enemy's list in Congress, that they, too, can be a target. Under this new process and this new standard, the privacy protections of the last half a century are gone. My worry, and I think the worry of every Republican here, and I hope some of our Democrat friends, as well, is that this will provide a dangerous new political weapon that invites political retribution where that cycle will continue and our politics will be worse, harsher, uglier, and more divisive because of this action. Again, at the end of the day, whether a President makes their tax returns public or not, today it is not the law. While I would recommend it for all, the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, this is political targeting. It can be applied not just to the President but to every American. I am worried that it is not just public officials at risk. It is private citizens. It could be supporters. It could be business or labor leaders. It could be the Supreme Court that someone seeks to delegitimize. That is our concern here. This is why we are fighting this fight as Republicans, to protect the privacy of every American, to make sure they are not targeted by partisans in Congress. I will tell you, I am very worried that every chairman of those two committees will face incredible pressure to target Americans, political enemies, and opponents, and I don't think we should ever go down that road. Regrettably, we are, and that is why we are here. I have respected Chairman Neal for many years and treasure our working relationship and the accomplishments we have done. I will miss you, friend. Before we conclude today, I want to say a special thank-you to several members of the Committee on Ways and Means Republican staff who have worked so hard on this issue for years: Sean Clerget, Derek Theurer, Caroline Jones, Molly Fromm, Brittany Havens, Paige Decker, J.P. Freire, and, of course, the remarkable staff director of the Committee on Ways and Means Republicans, Gary Andres. He has done a great job for this committee and this country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 2018 article, 4 years ago, from the San Francisco Chronicle, where the Honorable Nancy Pelosi said to expect Democrats to immediately try to force President Trump to release his tax returns if they take back the House in November, exposing the true purpose of this effort. [From the Bloomberg Government, Oct. 11, 2018] SF Chronicle: Pelosi: Trump's Tax Returns are Fair Game if Democrats Win House (By John Wildermuth) Expect Democrats to immediately try to force President Trump to release his tax returns if they take back the House in November, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday. Demanding the president's tax returns ``is one of the first things we'd do--that's the easiest thing in the world. That's nothing,'' Pelosi told The Chronicle's editorial board in an hour-long interview. Although a 1924 provision of the Internal Revenue Code gives certain congressional committees the right to request-- and release--the tax records of even the president, it's unlikely Trump would surrender those documents without an all-out legal battle. He has refused to release his returns since he announced he was running for president, arguing first that he was being audited and later that voters don't care. The GOP-led Congress has joined in keeping those records private, regularly voting down Democratic efforts to make Trump turn them over. Forcing Trump to release his returns would not necessarily make them public, but would allow a Democratic-run congressional committee to decide whether there is information in those returns that needs to be investigated. Whether that happens hinges on Democrats winning the House or the Senate. With the Nov. 6 election less than four weeks away, Pelosi sounded confident about both the House Democrats' chances and her own political future. ``I believe we would win if the election was today,'' she said. And although more than 50 Democratic candidates have said they wouldn't vote for Pelosi to lead the House, the San Francisco Democrat said, ``I believe I will be speaker if we win.'' Releasing the president's tax returns to a congressional committee would not be revenge for the way Trump and GOP leaders have treated the Democratic minority for the past two years, but a simple matter of oversight by Congress, ``a co- equal body of government,'' Pelosi said. ``We have to have the truth,'' she said. Payback isn't going to be part of a Democratic-led House, Pelosi promised, pushing back against what she called the ``pound of flesh crowd'' of Democrats eager to repay Republicans for every political slight and attack since Trump was elected. ``We will seek bipartisanship where we can,'' Pelosi said. ``One of the reasons we should win is that we're not like them, and we're not going to be like them.'' The Democratic leader also says she doesn't have much choice. No matter what happens on election day, Trump is still going to be president and she will have to work with him. ``We need to get a signature, which requires some bipartisanship, some common ground,'' Pelosi said, which she admitted wasn't always easy. ``I, probably more than most people do, respect the office he serves in, probably more than he does,'' she said. ``But he is the president--we have to find our common ground. . . . We want to get results for the American people.'' But that's going to mean discussions and compromise, not surrender, Pelosi said. Democrats ``will never negotiate away our values,'' she said. Pelosi is confident there are areas where Democrats can reach agreement with Trump and Republicans, as they did when Republican George W. Bush was president. Despite disputes over the Iraq War and other issues, ``we worked together, we disagree and we agreed, and that's the marketplace of ideas that we live in,'' she said. Areas where there could be common ground include national infrastructure improvements, a plan for Dreamers, undocumented residents who arrived in this country as minors, and ways to curb gun violence, Pelosi said. There's also public support for efforts to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower drug prices, she added. Pelosi also weighed in on some local issues, saying she supported San Francisco's efforts to establish a safe injection site for drug users, something Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed last month. She also backed changes in federal marijuana laws, although she admitted, ``I don't see this president signing any such thing.'' But those concerns are far from the top of the Democrats' ``to-do'' list if they take back the House. ``The first order of business is the economic security of America's working families--that is what people care about,'' Pelosi said. For Pelosi, that concern connects directly with San Francisco's Proposition C, which would tax large companies to raise an estimated $300 million a year for homeless programs. Pelosi said she supports the measure because it's something the city needs to do. She acknowledged the opposition from her political ally Mayor London Breed, who has said that before the city pours millions of dollars more into homeless programs, ``San Franciscans deserve accountability for the money they are already paying.'' ``I don't disagree with the mayor that there should be accountability and there should be a plan'' about how to use the funds, Pelosi said. ``I have great confidence in the mayor that she can handle it if Prop. C wins.'' Efforts to deal with social problems like homelessness, hunger and housing insecurity require a new vision from Congress, she said. ``We have to think in a different way about it, and when we think big, we have to put our hands in the pockets where the money is,'' Pelosi said. Homelessness ``is not an issue, it's a value. It's an ethic that we have not properly addressed.''

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would note that, every year, President Trump's tax returns were under audit and that the tradition of making Presidential tax returns public is just that, a tradition, not a law, and unrelated to the Presidential audit program. I would also note that while I have loved serving with my colleagues from Houston, I would note that they were among the very first Members of Congress to introduce impeachment resolutions against this President in the very first year of his Presidency, revealing that this is political targeting and nothing else. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a 2017 House report where the chairman said: ``Committee Democrats remain steadfast in our pursuit to have [President Trump's] individual tax returns disclosed to the public,'' which can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/ congressional-report/115th-congress/house-report/73/1

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

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an August 2, 2022, blog post from the Committee on Ways and Means titled: ``New Schumer- Manchin Bill Will Supercharge Long History of IRS Abuses.'' New Schumer-Manchin Bill Will Supercharge Long History of IRS Abuses, August 2, 2022. Despite a long history of IRS abuses, Democrats have revived their proposal to send 87,000 new IRS agents after you and your family-owned business on the belief that everyone is a tax cheat. The IRS has already been targeting lower and middle income earners, yet Democrats want to hire new IRS agents to audit individuals and small businesses. They've also promised to revive their invasive bank surveillance scheme. democrats want to increase audits for all individuals by more than 1.2 million per year: A Senate Finance Committee analysis shows the $45.6 billion for ``enforcement'' would ``predominantly hit taxpayers who have low (or very low) Adjusted Gross Income. Nothing in the proposal would change that fact.'' Nearly half of the audits would hit Americans making $75,000 per year or less. Low-income taxpayers making up to $25,000 per year would see more audits too. Despite a clear need for greater taxpayer customer service amidst a historic tax return backlog, only $3.2 billion of Democrats' $80 billion is earmarked for that purpose. Supercharging the IRS will lay the groundwork for the monitoring the Biden Administration has pledged to impose. Top Biden officials have made clear they have not given up on implementing IRS bank surveillance. Overly broad IRS targeting spanning decades has claimed many victims, and Democrats are trying to revive it. Former IRS official Lois Lerner apologized in 2013 that Tea Party groups and other groups had been targeted for audits of their applications for tax-exemption, which effectively delayed that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election. The Treasury Inspector General found that ``Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review back in 2013. In 1998, the Waslington Post reported that ``An Oklahoma tax-return preparer, a Texas oilman and a Virginia restaurateur told lawmakers how raiding parties of armed agents from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division barged into their homes or offices, frightened their employees and families--and ultimately came up empty- handed.'' ``Two of the men said they later found that former employees had precipitated the raids, and that the IRS had done little or no checking on their informants' credibility. The third witness said he never could determine why he was targeted.'' In 1997, CNN reported testimony from an expert that the IRS was ``the best secret-keeping agency in our government today: ``I discovered that the IRS does keep lists of American citizens for no reason other than that their political activities might have offended someone at the IRS; about how the IRS believes that anyone who offers even legitimate criticism of the tax collector is a tax protester; about how the IRS shreds its paper trail, which means that there is no history, no evidence and, ultimately, no accountability.'' Robert Schriebman, a tax professor at the University of Southern California and author of eight books critical of IRS practices and procedures, decried the agency's ability to ignore citizens' due-process protections. ``The IRS can take a taxpayer's home by just the signature of the district director alone,'' he said. These abuses led to numerous attempts at overhauling the agency, and the latest still has not yet been implemented. Irs agents have wrongly seized millions from small businesses when given the opportunity In an apparent show of strength, past IRS actions led to the seizure of more than $43 million from bank accounts of hundreds of small businesses; the results of those actions in a recent case led to local wedding dress shop being permanently shut down. Only after intense pressure from Congress did the IRS return the money that had been taken to some of the businesses, including a Maryland dairy farmer. IRS political leaks have been a problem whenever Democrats have been in the White House The last time President Biden was in the White House in 2011, Democrats pushed for billions more in enforcement without providing clear, independent analysis supporting the funding, relying on information provided by activist groups aligned with their political objectives, and the IRS, which stood to gain funding. Prior to the 2021 leak, ProPublica previously received (and published) leaked taxpayer information from the IRS in 2012 that just so happened to include critics of the Democrat administration. Political targeting By IRS threatens religious organizations and critics alike The IRS initially denied a Christian organization tax- exempt status because its emphasis on certain ``Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican] Party and candidates.'' This is particularly concerning given the agency's prior history of targeting tax exempt groups for additional scrutiny based on their perceived political affiliation. Recently, Democrats in Congress asked the IRS to increase scrutiny of groups seeking church status. IRS mismanagement is well documented An audit of the IRS itself, conducted from FYs 2010-2012 and published in 2013 found ``inappropriate use of taxpayer funds being spent on conferences and reviews selected conferences to determine whether the conferences were properly approved, and the expenditures were appropriated.'' Another audit in 2019 found that the IRS wasted millions of dollars on software licenses it purchased but never used due to mismanagement of IT contracts and systems updates. Despite the Biden Administration's claim that more money will increase IRS audits and increase revenue from wealthy individuals and corporations, the Inspector General actually found that after spending $22 million and 200 hours auditing large businesses, the IRS was unsuccessful in bringing in money to the Treasury from those audits nearly 50 percent of the time.

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

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to note that every year of President Trump's tax returns are under audit. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article explaining the purpose of the taxpayer privacy law the Democrats have dismantled this week, exposing all Americans to political attack via tax information. [From the Lawfare, Dec. 2, 2022] House Democrats Can Release Trump's Tax Returns. But Should They? (By Daniel J. Hemel) Now that a House committee has obtained access to six years of former President Trump's tax returns, congressional Democrats face an easy question and a harder one. The easy question is whether, as a matter of law, the House Ways and Means Committee--which gained access to the former president's tax filings after the Supreme Court dismissed Trump's last-ditch bid to block the Internal Revenue Service from handing over the documents--can make Trump's returns public before Republicans take control of the chamber on Jan. 3. The answer to that question is straightforwardly yes. The harder question is whether, as a normative matter, the committee ought to make Trump's returns public in the waning weeks of the Democratic majority. On the one hand, Trump's tax filings should have seen the light of day long ago. Trump should have released his returns voluntarily--as every elected president since Richard Nixon has. The Trump administration should have allowed the IRS to hand the president's tax returns over to the House Ways and Means Committee when that panel's chair, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), requested those documents in April 2019. And the federal judiciary shouldn't have allowed Trump to stall the release of his returns for three and a half years through litigation. On the other hand, the Ways and Means Committee has maintained throughout the litigation over Trump's tax returns--which culminated with last week's Supreme Court decision--that it is seeking the documents as part of its plan to review the IRS's presidential audit program. (The presidential audit program is the procedure--mentioned in an IRS manual but not codified in any statute or regulation--by which the IRS examines individual tax returns filed by the president and vice president each year.) Any review of the presidential audit program that starts now and ends when the GOP takes control of the House in January would be slapdash and superficial. If Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee rushed to release Trump's returns in the lameduck session--without conducting the comprehensive review of the presidential audit program that they promised--it would look like their stated motive for seeking the documents was indeed, as Trump has alleged, pretextual. Fortunately, the Senate Finance Committee--which will remain under Democratic leadership in the next Congress--has both the resources and the apparent inclination to conduct the comprehensive review of the presidential audit program that House Democrats initially set out to undertake. So even if the House Ways and Means Committee doesn't release Trump's tax returns this month, the likely consequence is not that Trump's returns will remain under wraps forever. The Senate Finance Committee will be able to obtain the returns itself, and that committee then can release return information that is relevant to its review of the presidential audit program. Full disclosure: I've been advocating for the release of President Trump's tax information since April 2017, when I suggested in a Washington Post op-ed and a Yale Law Journal Forum article that New York could enact a law requiring the release of Trump's state tax filings. I've advised state lawmakers in New York on strategies to make Trump's tax returns public. I've criticized House Ways and Means Chairman Neal for acting too slowly to obtain Trump's returns. So I'm no apologist for Trump's tax secrecy. Still, it's important that Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee remain true to their word. Chairman Neal said his committee needed Trump's tax returns to evaluate the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces federal tax laws against the president. To turn around now and release Trump's returns--outside the context of a thorough evaluation of the IRS's presidential audit program--would make the stated rationale look much like a head fake. That would seem especially gratuitous given that the Senate Finance Committee stands ready, willing, and able to carry out its own review of the presidential audit program. The Easy Question: Can House Democrats Make Trump's Tax Returns Public? The law is clear that the House Ways and Means Committee can now make Trump's tax returns public if a majority of the committee members vote to do so. The relevant statute, Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, instructs the IRS to release otherwise- confidential tax returns or return information to three congressional tax committees--the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Joint Committee on Taxation--upon written request from the chair of any of those panels. The statute also instructs the IRS to release returns or return information to other congressional committees under a narrower set of circumstances. The key language regarding the receiving committee's confidentiality obligations lies in Section 6103(f)(4). That paragraph says that any return or return information obtained by the Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, or Joint Committee on Taxation ``may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both.'' It goes on to say that any return or return information obtained by another committee ``may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer, shall be furnished to the Senate or the House of Representatives only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure'' (emphasis added). Some textualist judges and justices are fond of the Latin phrase ``expressio unius est exclusio alterius'': the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. But one doesn't need to be a textualist--or a classicist--to recognize the importance of the contrast between the two submission provisions. Absent the taxpayer's consent, other committees can submit returns to the full Senate or House ``only when sitting in closed executive session.'' The Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and Joint Committee on Taxation can submit returns to the full Senate or House without condition. Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reached the same conclusion in his December 2021 decision rejecting Trump's bid to block the IRS from releasing his returns. ``It might not be right or wise to publish the returns,'' McFadden wrote, but the House Ways and Means Committee has the ``right to do so.'' And if the House Ways and Means Committee exercises that right with respect to Trump's returns, its action wouldn't be unprecedented: In 2014, the House Ways and Means Committee published return information regarding 51 taxpayers as part of its investigation into allegations that the IRS had discriminated against conservative nonprofit organizations seeking tax exempt status. In the definitive scholarly treatment of Section 6103(f), longtime University of Virginia law professor George Yin, who served as chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2003 to 2005, concludes that the choice to allow the three tax committees to publish private tax information was a ``conscious decision'' by Congress. Prior to 1976, Yin explains, the president--along with the three congressional tax committees--had statutory authority to make return information public. A 1976 amendment eliminated the president's authority to publicize return information but preserved the power of the three tax committees. ``Congress no doubt felt compelled in 1976 to preserve some outlet for Congressional disclosures to the public,'' Yin writes, and it ``was natural to give this authority to the tax committees.'' On top of all this, the Speech and Debate Clause immunizes lawmakers from liability for statements they make in committee and on the House or Senate floor. So even if it weren't for Section 6103(f)(4), a Ways and Means Committee member could--without legal consequence--read Trump's tax returns aloud, line by line, with the C-SPAN cameras rolling. But House Democrats don't need to rely on constitutional super-immunity here: The relevant statutory provisions clearly empower the Ways and Means Committee to enter Trump's tax returns into the public domain. The Hard Question: Should House Democrats Make Trump's Tax Returns Public? Before delving into the normative question of whether the House Ways and Means Committee ought to publish Trump's tax returns, let's clear three points out of the way. First, presidents ought to release their tax returns. Disclosure of presidential tax returns helps to dispel the pernicious notion that taxpaying is only for the ``little people.'' Disclosure also helps voters and lawmakers evaluate presidential conflicts of interest (for example, by revealing whether presidents would benefit personally from their administrations' tax proposals). Finally, disclosure serves as a check on improper presidential influence over the IRS. By virtue of their position at the apex of the executive branch, presidents are the nation's tax enforcers-in-chief, but they are also taxpayers against whom the federal tax laws may be enforced. Disclosure helps to reduce the risk that presidents will exploit their dual roles to their own pecuniary advantage. Second, the Trump administration should have allowed the IRS to release Trump's tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee when Chairman Neal requested those returns in April 2019. Section 6103(f)'s instructions are clear: ``Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means'' or the chair of the other congressional tax panels, the treasury secretary (or the IRS commissioner as the secretary's delegee) ``shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request'' (emphasis added). The statute makes no exception for cases in which disclosure might embarrass the president. And while case law suggests that the executive branch may reject an information request from Congress if the request does not further a ``legitimate task of Congress,'' Neal's April 2019 request manifestly stated a legitimate basis: so that his committee could conduct oversight of the IRS's presidential audit program and, if needed, consider legislative reforms related to presidential audits. Third, the litigation over Neal's April 2019 request shouldn't have dragged on for as long as it did. It was nearly three and a half years ago--in July 2019--when the House Ways and Means Committee first asked a D.C. federal district court to order the IRS to hand over Trump's returns. The lengthy delay in resolving that litigation meant that Trump could effectively evade congressional oversight of the presidential audit program for the duration of his term. Fault for the delay lies at the feet of multiple people-and Neal himself bears some culpability for waiting until April 2019 to submit his request and until July 2019 to file his lawsuit rather than seeking the returns immediately after Democrats took control of the House in January of that year. However one allocates blame, though, it shouldn't take three and a half years for the federal courts to confirm that the word ``shall'' in Section 6103(f) really means ``shall.'' But here we are in December 2022, and over the course of the three-and-a-half-year fight over Trump's returns, Neal and other members of the House Ways and Means Committee made several statements that constrain their options now. In the initial April 2019 letter requesting Trump's returns, Neal said his committee needed the documents ``to determine the scope'' of the IRS's audit of the president ``and whether it includes a review of underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual income tax return.'' As recently as last month, the Ways and Means Committee told the Supreme Court that its document request ``is well-tailored to illuminating how the IRS conducted any audits of Mr. Trump while he was President and whether reforms are needed to enhance the IRS's ability to audit Presidents in the future.'' Throughout the litigation, Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee adamantly denied that ``the request is driven by exposure solely for the sake of exposure'' (as Trump had argued). In a June 2021 letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, Neal put it succinctly: ``There have been claims''--including from Trump himself--``that the true and sole purpose of the Committee's inquiry here is to expose President Trump's tax returns. These claims are wrong.'' Plainly, the House Ways and Means Committee is not going to be able to carry out a thorough evaluation of the IRS 's presidential audit program in the four and a half weeks between now and the GOP takeover. The committee's document request is extensive: It has asked for returns filed by Trump and seven of his business entities from tax years 2015 through 2020, a status report for each audit, and administrative files such as examiner workpapers associated with each of the Trump returns. With competing demands for the attention of committee members and staffers (including a Dec. 16 deadline to avert a government shutdown), reviewing those documents may consume the better part of the next four and a half weeks. But even after the committee reviews all those documents, it will still need more information before it can complete the comprehensive assessment of the presidential audit program that it has promised. For example, the committee will need to know how the IRS's handling of items on Trump's tax returns compares to the service's treatment of similar items on returns filed by other high-net-worth business owners who weren't president of the United States. If the IRS allowed Trump to claim an inflated charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement at his golf course in Westchester County, New York, is that because examiners gave special treatment to Trump, or is it because the service generally lacks the resources to challenge conservation easement appraisals? The committee also will likely need to hear testimony from IRS examiners involved in the presidential audit program. Did they personally experience improper political influence? And the committee will need to compare the audits of Trump's returns to audits of other presidents and vice presidents. For example, when Joe Biden became president, did the IRS go back and review Biden's aggressive use of a self-employment tax loophole to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on his and his spouse Jill's 2017 and 2018 returns? While Biden--unlike Trump--released his returns voluntarily, we don't know what happened to those filings after they entered the IRS audit vortex. To be sure, the House Ways and Means Committee could begin its review of the presidential audit program now and then release everything it has when the clock strikes noon on Jan. 3, like a test-taking student who drops her pencil mid- sentence when the proctor says ``time's up.'' Trump's tax returns and additional information collected by the committee would then enter the public domain, allowing journalists and others to probe further. If Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee had said all along that their purpose was to vindicate the principle of presidential tax transparency using the powers at their disposal under Section 6103(f), perhaps that course of action would be justified. Indeed, releasing Trump's tax returns for the sake of releasing Trump's tax returns might not be such a bad thing--given all the arguments for presidential tax transparency outlined above. Yet Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee insisted all along that their motive was not exposure for the sake of exposure. That was a strategically wise thing to say for litigation purposes, but the statement circumscribes what they can (or, at least, should) do next. Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee would undermine their own credibility--and could be seen as hoodwinking the courts and the public--if they proceeded to release the returns outside the context of a comprehensive review of the presidential audit program. Can the Senate Take Over? Enter stage left: the Senate Finance Committee. While the Republicans who take control of the House Ways and Means Committee in January are exceedingly unlikely to continue the Democrats' inquiry, the Senate Finance Committee under the leadership of Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is quite capable of conducting the comprehensive review of the presidential audit program that House Democrats won't be able to complete. Wyden will have to send his own written request to the IRS for Trump's returns, but this shouldn't be much more than a formality: Wyden could send the request this morning, and the IRS could send the documents back this afternoon. There is no requirement that Wyden or the IRS even inform Trump of the request before the IRS fulfills it. By the time Trump could file a lawsuit to stop the IRS from complying, Wyden already would have the documents in hand. In any event, a lawsuit by Trump to stop the IRS from fulfilling Wyden's request would be frivolous given the D.C. Circuit's decision resolving the issue in the House litigation--and almost certainly would be dismissed much more quickly than Trump's earlier bid to block the House. Section 6103(f)(4) also allows Neal, as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, to appoint agents to examine the returns that he has obtained through his request. In theory, Neal could appoint Senate Finance Committee staffers--or Chairman Wyden himself--as the House committee's agents. But Neal's GOP successor as House Ways and Means chair could revoke that appointment, ending the Senate's inquiry in midstream. Thus, the better course of action is clearly for Wyden to issue his own written request for the returns on the Senate Finance Committee's behalf. In sum, even as the window closes for the House Ways and Means Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the presidential audit program, Congress still can comb through Trump's tax returns and determine whether the IRS fairly and fully audited the former president. It would be in a different chamber of Congress--the Senate, not the House--but Trump would nonetheless be subject to legislative branch scrutiny. Hopefully, House Democrats will recognize that deferring to their Senate colleagues is preferable to reneging on their own word and publishing Trump's returns outside the context of the presidential audit program review that they promised. If, instead, House Democrats release the returns now, Trump and his supporters will charge Democrats with duplicity for saying one thing in litigation and doing another thing afterward--and the charge won't be entirely baseless. That would, perversely, allow Trump to transform the matter of his tax returns from a political vulnerability for him to a potential liability for Democrats. And beyond questions of political strategy, promise-keeping is--of course--an important value in itself. So yes, presidents should release their tax returns, but that doesn't release House Democrats from the avowals about their motives that they have made since 2019. In their last weeks in the majority, House Democrats have another opportunity to demonstrate why they deserve the nation's trust. They should seize it--even if that means those of us who have been waiting for years to know what's buried in Trump's tax returns might have to wait a little longer.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes). MR. ESTES. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, what a shameful way for the majority to end their reckless tenure in House leadership. Today, we are debating and voting on rushed bills that will cost Americans trillions of dollars, expand the Federal government, and eviscerate personal privacy. The timing of this atrocious bill is an assault on the institution and further undermines the public trust in the United States House of Representatives and Federal agencies. Let us be clear: This bill has one purpose, to help the majority party justify their prejudiced release of personal and private data of the former President, his wife, and his 16-year-old son. The supporters of this bill claim that releasing personal tax returns is needed to prove the Presidential mandatory audit process works. It does not. Congress should oversee the Presidential mandatory audit process to ensure it does work correctly; but this invasion of privacy does not do that. Another point, the Presidential mandatory audit process is completely separate from the voluntary release of tax returns done by seven of the last nine Presidents. Democrats have supercharged the IRS weapon to not only go after political enemies, but their spouses and minor children, too. Minor children aren't even exempt from the Democrats' desire to take down their opponents. Regardless of one's political preferences or attitudes toward a former President, every American should be vehemently opposed to this un-American attack on privacy, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I would note that our professional staff was ready to join in redaction; however, we were forced to prepare for this floor action and offered to do that together after we were done this morning. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a recent legal journal that notes that because Ways and Means Democrats did not pursue the Presidential audits of any of the other eight Presidents in that system, that the committee undermines their own credibility by releasing returns outside the context of a comprehensive review, an honest review of the Presidential audit program. [From Chicago-Kent Law Review, April 1999] I.R.C. 6103: Let's Get to the Source of the Problem (By Mark Berggren)

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the Republican leader of the Budget Committee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record one page from the Democrats' own report showing that, contrary to what we just heard, every single year, tax returns at issue are under audit, debunking this claim that the IRS hasn't examined the tax return. Notably, the IRS sent a letter to the former President notifying him that his tax year 2015 return was selected for examination on April 3, 2019, which is the date the Chairman sent the initial request to the IRS for the former President's return information and related tax returns. The designated agents were told by the IRS that two of the entities the Chairman requested were included in the mandatory audit program--DJT Holdings LLC and DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC (DJTH Managing Member). The designated agents found the below information regarding DJT Holdings LLC's date of filing on the transcripts and selection for examination and very little information for DJTH Managing Member. Tax Year, Date Return Filed, Date Selected for Examination, Designated by IRS as Mandatory Audit: 2015, October 10, 2016, July 25, 2019, No. 2016, October 16, 2017, February 11, 2020, No indication. 2017, October 8, 2018, March 19, 2021, No. 2018, October 21, 2019, January 28, 2022, No. 2019, October 12, 2020, April 5, 2022, No. 2020, February 21, 2022, None, No. During the prior Administration, it was clear that the mandatory audit program was not a priority and was not provided with the resources needed to ensure compliance by the former President. An internal IRS memo stated: ``With over 400 flow-thru returns reported on the Form 1040, it is not possible to obtain the resources available to examine all potential issues.'' The designated agents found that the following issues, among others, warranted examination by the

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), the Republican leader of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from yesterday's Los Angeles Times confirming the release of tax returns does nothing to evaluate the IRS auditing process or to advance any legitimate oversight goal. [From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 21, 2022] Column: Should Congress Post Trump's Tax Returns Publicly? I Don't Think So (By Nicholas Goldberg) Donald Trump should have released his tax returns when he was running for president, and in not doing so he was deceptive, sleazy and in violation of a long-standing tradition that fosters transparency and honesty. He obviously hoped to hide unfavorable information from the voters. Despite that, I don't believe the House Ways and Means Committee should release his tax returns to the public now. The committee fought a long battle all the way to the Supreme Court to obtain copies of the returns. It argued that it needed them to evaluate the effectiveness of an IRS program that audits the tax filings of presidents. Republicans squawked all the way, saying the Democrats who controlled the committee were being disingenuous, and that no, no, no, they weren't seeking to do a legitimate evaluation--they were just creating a pretext to get ahold of Trump's returns for a humiliating public fishing expedition into what taxes had or hadn't been paid. The courts ultimately ruled that the committee could have six years of Trump's federal tax returns. That battle ended last month. But on Tuesday, the committee voted to do something that goes well beyond what's necessary to evaluate the IRS' presidential audit program: The committee is now going to release Trump's taxes publicly, posting the full returns (minus certain identifiers like Social Security numbers and bank account numbers) for all to see. And quickly too, in the coming days, before the Democrats lose control of the committee to the Republicans on Jan. 3. Why make the returns public? How does that help Congress figure out whether the IRS auditing process is working? How does it further the legitimate oversight goals of the committee? Answer: It doesn't. It turns out the Republicans are right. (This may be the first time since the Civil War.) As they correctly noted, this is a politically motivated move to release information that might harm or embarrass the former president. In theory, I'm all for embarrassing Trump. (With these two caveats: First, no one can embarrass Trump more than he embarrasses himself, and second, he's entirely shameless so he doesn't really get embarrassed in any normal sense of the word.) The ex-president is a dishonest thug who needs to be called to account for his misbehavior. But in this particular case, I think the Democrats are in the wrong. For one thing, releasing the private tax returns probably won't shed much light on anything. The New York Times already received leaked details of more than two decades of Trump's tax filings and published long stories that should've shocked the world. Billionaire pays less in federal taxes in some years than you and I do! Trump paid no federal income taxes at all in 10 out of 15 years! Furthermore, the Manhattan district attorney's office has many of Trump's tax returns as well, and prosecutors can pursue cases using the data they uncover. But the main reason I object to posting the returns is that I worry--perhaps quaintly, in this day and age--about the continued politicization of governmental processes, and the continued breaking of established norms, in this case making private tax filings public. I know I'll get a thousand emails saying ``the Republicans wouldn't hesitate to do the same to us'' and ``if we're civil and respectful and always play by Marquess of Queensberry rules while our political opponents continue their underhanded tricks, we will always be beaten.'' There's certainly some truth to that. But there's truth to the flip side too: If nobody plays by the rules, there will soon be no rules to play by. When you're doing something as sensitive and politically explosive as investigating a former president--at a tense time in history when there's talk of civil war and violence is on the rise and bitter political partisanship is smoldering--it makes sense to be careful to respect the established process, be as honest as possible, refrain from unnecessary politicization and not escalate conflict unnecessarily. Among other things, posting Trump's taxes seems likely to result in tit-for-tat posting of other people's private tax returns. Will we soon be seeing Hunter Biden's tax returns on the web? It'll also give Republicans some basis for saying that, actually, it is Democrats who go low when others go high. Unsurprisingly, the committee vote was along party lines. Like so much of what goes on in Washington these days. If Congress thinks all presidents or presidential candidates should release their tax returns for public scrutiny--which I believe is a good idea--it should pass a law that mandates that going forward. It should not find circuitous, pretextual ways of going after particular presidents. The returns the Ways and Means Committee received apparently showed that Trump often paid little or nothing in federal income taxes between 2015 and 2020 despite reporting millions in earnings, thanks to steep losses elsewhere. That's similar to what the New York Times found in its reporting. The unembarrassable Trump once said in a debate when Hillary Clinton accused him of not paying much in federal taxes: ``That makes me smart.'' Voters need to know more about the sources and scope of presidential candidates' wealth and about potential conflicts of interests. But posting Trump's returns at this point and under these circumstances and given the arguments that were made to obtain them, serves politics much more than transparency.

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for his leadership of this committee and his friendship. You care about the institution; you care about this committee. Your word has always been good, and together our committees have done good things: banning surprise medical billing, new trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, repeated efforts to help people save. It has been an honor to serve with you. Now, if you will excuse me, I intend to peel the bark off this bill in front of us right now. Madam Speaker, this bill is a charade. It is a flimsy excuse that for years has been used to justify the political targeting of former President Trump. This week, Democrats in Congress finally accomplished their goal: for the first time in history making public the full, actual tax returns of a private citizen. This unprecedented action jeopardizes the right of every American to be protected from political targeting by Congress. We are told President Trump's returns must be released in order for the IRS to conduct its Presidential audits. That is absurd. That is like going to the doctor and being told your private medical records must be released in order to be examined. One has nothing to do with the other. And then you would quickly realize, someone just wants to release your medical records, and any excuse will do. Let me be clear: Republicans' concerns are not whether the President should have made his tax returns public as has been tradition, nor about the accuracy of his tax returns, that is for the IRS and the taxpayer to determine. Our concern is that this politically motivated action sets a terrible precedent that unleashes a dangerous new political weapon reaching far beyond any President, and overturns decades of privacy protections for average Americans that have existed since the Watergate reforms. Our current law was put in place specifically to prevent Presidents and Members of Congress from targeting political enemies through their tax returns. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stop the flimsy and admittedly partisan Democrat efforts to target the former President. Now, as a result, thanks to this week's actions, longstanding privacy protections for all taxpayers have been gutted. Going forward, the majority chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Financial Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the Supreme Court Justices themselves. No party in Congress should hold that power. No individual should hold that power to embarrass, harass, or destroy a private citizen through disclosure of their private tax returns. After nearly half a century, the political enemies list is back in Washington, D.C., and it will unleash a cycle of political retribution in Congress. Many of us in Congress believed the current law was strong enough to protect private citizens against this political targeting, but it is no longer. That is frightening. Republicans will continue to fight to protect American taxpayers from this abuse of power that will surely have severe consequences for taxpayers and democracy for years to come. We have urged our Democrat friends to turn back because making private tax information public will be a regrettable stain, both on our committee and on Congress. It will make American politics even more ugly and divisive. In the long run, we believe every Member of Congress will come to regret this. Madam Speaker, we strongly oppose this bill today. Not because portions of it doesn't have merit, some do, but it has serious flaws, of course, because it didn't exist 48 hours ago. And had it been brought forward 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, as an honest attempt to improve Presidential audits, I am convinced we could have found common ground with no need to expose private tax returns of anyone. But not now, not this bill, and not this way. Republicans will not support any measure whose only purpose is to provide cover for the political targeting of a private citizen. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank Congressman Graves for being here today and telling that story again about this outstanding man and his family and the care he got. I join with Dr. Davis. I applaud the sponsors of this bill. I urge all Members of this body to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with Chairman Davis to speak in support of H.R. 9271, the Dr. Joanne Smith Memorial Rehabilitation Innovation Centers Act. This bill is important. It will create a standard to publicly recognize industry-leading facilities through the distinction of being a rehabilitation innovation center. These exceptional facilities are truly at the cutting edge of treatment. They are leaders in innovation--researching, developing, and applying new medical breakthroughs and technologies that can then be spread to patients and facilities across the Nation and the world. I have seen firsthand the amazing positive impact of these premier institutions. I am proud that The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, TIRR as we call it, Memorial Hermann, is located in Houston, Texas, serving patients in my district, in this country, and around the world. I have had the privilege to visit TIRR Memorial Hermann to see firsthand how their patients benefit from life-changing care, particularly for patients who have suffered traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. The patients arriving at TIRR are often recovering from very medically complex injuries that really alter the course of their life. TIRR provides patients with a full team of specialized caregivers and physicians to ensure that each patient receives the very best plan of care for their injury, so they are able to return to their communities. This incredible work and constant effort to research and develop new and innovative treatments for their patients has resulted in breakthroughs that have benefited patients not just in Houston but around the globe. Today I will share just two of the thousands of stories that highlight the life-changing impact TIRR has made for patients. When our former colleague here in the House, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was horrifically attacked at point-blank range and miraculously stabilized from her critical condition, she was transferred to TIRR Memorial Hermann for her recovery. On that long road to recovery, TIRR's expert physicians, nurses, and therapists worked together with Gabby designing the right combination of intensive therapies and treatments. At TIRR, they still talk about Gabby's motivation, her focus, and positive approach that she showed throughout her remarkable recovery. Corporal Nick Tullier was one of six Baton Rouge police officers shot during a 2016 ambush attack. Doctors told Nick's family he wouldn't survive 24 hours, but for nearly 6 years, he defied all odds after being treated at TIRR Memorial Hermann. He passed away a hero in May of this year. I am immensely proud to have this amazing work happening in my home region of Houston. In my district and hometown, we are fortunate enough to host some of the TIRR patients at Memorial Hermann, the Woodlands Medical Center. I am honored to have had the opportunity to visit with the patients, nurses, doctors, and caregivers who are proudly part of the incredible work of TIRR Memorial Hermann. I commend them, as you do, for their incredible life-changing work. I would also like to commend my friend and fellow member of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Darin LaHood for his leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor. He unfortunately couldn't be here today, but on behalf of both of us and the Ways and Means Committee, I would urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I was unexpectedly delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 513 (H.R. 8404).

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, this week, we honor the legacy of Representative Jackie Walorski by renewing our commitment to help moms and babies thrive. I thank Chairman Davis and our Republican leader, Dr. Wenstrup, for their leadership on this issue. Throughout her life, Jackie served vulnerable families, from the mission field in Romania to the halls of Congress, where she proudly represented the men and women of Indiana's Second Congressional District. She reached across the aisle and worked closely with Chairman Davis to move this important bipartisan bill forward. My last conversation with Jackie was by Zoom on this bill itself. We miss her very much. We are proud to dedicate the product of her collaboration today to her because she has been such an inspiration in these efforts. Jackie knew that this was a critical program that supports vulnerable families and improves the health of moms and babies through pregnancy into the early years of a child's life. This program builds upon decades of research that proves home visits by a nurse, social worker, or other trained professional during pregnancy, and in the very first years of a child's life, help to prevent child abuse and neglect, support positive parenting, improve maternal and child health, and promote the development of kids and school readiness. This is a bipartisan bill that reflects many of our Republican priorities, including increasing transparency about outcomes and results for families and targeting dollars to the neediest communities. Most Federal programs, unfortunately, operate in a black box. Less than $1 out of every $100 the government spends is backed by even the most basic evidence and research to make sure the money is spent wisely and succeeds. Unlike many of those programs, MIECHV is evidence-based, so we know the real impact on families and children. We are able to direct funding toward what works for them. The Walorski home visiting program will gradually increase funding from $400 million a year to $800 million a year over a 5-year period and introduces a State match so we can stretch those dollars even further back home. The principle is simple. Where the States see value in investing, the Federal Government will also invest. It also ensures the new matching funds are allocated to States based on the number of kids under 5 living below poverty, so funding goes where the needs and the kids are. The bill increases transparency by creating what I love, which is a State-by-State outcomes dashboard so all of us can see how these interventions are helping families, and it maintains the current focus on high standards. I take this moment to thank my friend, Dr. and Representative Wenstrup, who serves today as acting Republican leader of the Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support. He stepped up to the plate to carry on Jackie's legacy with grace and determination, and I thank him for his hard work. I think all of us can think of no more fitting tribute to Jackie than the bipartisan support coming together for something that helps our most needy families. I, like many of us today, am grateful we are getting this bill across the finish line together in her honor.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the distinguished career and public service of my Texas constituent and good friend, Mrs. Lyn Hawthorne Howard. Lyn is a cherished business leader, philanthropist, community leader, and artist. Passionate about Texas history and culture, she has led significant efforts to restore and preserve historic buildings and homes in and around Conroe, Texas. Lyn was born in Shreveport, Louisiana. But as they say, she ``got to Texas as soon as she could.'' She attended Texas Woman's University, graduating with a degree in Education. Lyn was also a member of the famous Kilgore Rangerettes--one of America's most prestigious dance and drill teams. As a Rangerette, Lyn grew a deep appreciation for Texas culture as she traveled and performed throughout our great state. Lyn is a principled business leader, and her devotion to hard work has served as an inspiration to women all over Texas. Lyn broke through the glass windshield, becoming the first woman to own and manage a successful Toyota dealership. Invited to visit Japan with a group of American car dealers, the Toyota Company was surprised to learn there was a woman in the group. The company suggested she may be more comfortable participating in the tours arranged for ``dealers' wives.'' Confidently, Lyn replied, ``no, thank you,'' and reminded her Japanese hosts that she too was a car dealer and insisted on attending all the meetings with her fellow Toyota auto brokers. Another one of Lyn's successful business ventures was her investment in the San Antonio- based LDS Telecom company. As a result of Lyn's leadership, she led the business to become a major telecom company in Texas, and she sold her stake in the early 1980s with tremendous results. Lyn always puts her community first, playing a vital role in preserving Texas's history. Recently, Lyn is devoted to preserving the history of Conroe, Texas. She purchased and restored the original home of Conroe city founder, Isaac Conroe and has played a leading role in several important historic preservation and restoration projects. She has long been a leader and organizer of Conroe's annual Founder's Day celebration. Lyn is also a passionate member of multiple historical preservation societies. In 2021, she was recognized as a fifty-year member of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas in two chapters: The Alamo Missions Chapter and The Judge Nathaniel Hart Davis Chapter. Lyn has been involved in beauty pageants for over forty years, winning titles of Miss United America Elite 2012 and Miss United Royal 2013. She is also a talented singer, dancer, and painter. Always seeking new artistic challenges, Lyn recently became interested in sculpture which has become her latest passion. She has sculpted bronze busts of her husband and another bust of President Donald Trump which has been displayed in Washington. Currently, she is working on a sculpture of Conroe founder Isaac Conroe. For her decades of leadership and service, I am honored to recognize and commend Lyn for her many significant contributions to the Conroe community and the great state of Texas.

Mr. BRADY

Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join Chairman Neal in expressing our heartbreak and sorrow in losing Congresswoman Jackie Walorski, our colleague, as well as Zachery and Emma. She was so proud of her Team Walorski folks. The truth of the matter is, Jackie lit up every room she was in with her passion and her brilliance and her friendship and warmness. There is no question she could do everything. She was all in on everything and worked hard to find common ground wherever she could. Last week was a shocking week and a week to mourn. This week is a time to celebrate Jackie, her legacy, and her life. Sadly, this massive Senate bill, drawn in secret, stuffed with government checks to the wealthy and favored interests, and rushed through Congress is a hoax on the American people. It fails to reduce inflation, fails to reduce the budget deficit, and fails to reduce the world's temperature. Who in their right mind raises taxes in a recession? The answer is only President Biden and his supporters in Congress who bungled this economic recovery think that is a good idea. You remember them. They told you they would defeat COVID, that inflation was a rich person's problem, that their $2 trillion spending spree last spring would strengthen the economy. Instead, what did their promises deliver? The worst inflation in 40 years, a recession, and a crippling worker shortage that continues to hammer Main Street businesses. Today, we have a shrinking economy, shrinking paychecks, and a shrinking workforce. Families are skipping meals, running up credit card debt to pay for daily essentials, delaying retirement, and struggling to afford gas just to drive to work. Yet, Democrats today insist inflation doesn't even exist. They say it is zero. The truth is, most Americans have lost confidence in President Biden's failed handling of the economy. By contrast, the majority of the jobs in the COVID recovery came under President Trump, and under Republican leadership, paychecks grew twice as fast as prices. The economy was surging, not shrinking like it is today, and 600,000 more Americans were working than today under this unpopular White House. Why would you trust the same Democrats responsible for this cruel economy with another of their misguided spending bills? While other countries are lowering taxes to fight inflation, Democrats imposed over $350 billion in taxes that land on local manufacturers that build right here in America. It will kill jobs, slow the economy, and raise prices even higher. Small businesses, which hire nearly half of all workers in America, get hammered with $50 billion in new taxes. Senior citizens and savers will bear the impact of $74 billion in new taxes that punish companies from investing in their stock value. All these taxes will hurt the economy, drive inflation further, and harm workers' paychecks, according to the independent Tax Foundation. Democrats promise that no American will ``see a penny'' of tax hikes, yet Congress' own budget office debunks that claim, confirming the largest burden of higher taxes will come from middle-class families starting next year. President Biden is violating his own pledge not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. He is denying that truth. Yesterday, House Democrats insisted there are no new IRS agents funded in this bill. Read their lips: No new IRS agents. They say it is all fearmongering, and they are just hiring replacements. Unfortunately, the fact is the IRS budget already budgets for those who are leaving through attrition, and the Treasury Department itself outlines the next decade of adding 87,000 new IRS agents. That is what this bill unleashes. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reports ``audit rates will increase for every income level,'' that almost 90 percent of unreported tax income comes from who? The middle class. How will Democrats collect $204 billion in more taxes? With thousands of new agents targeting what I would call Walmart shoppers. You know them. They are real, hardworking American families. They are my constituents. They are my neighbors in my district. They are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling with inflation and higher gas prices. They will be hit with over 700,000 new audits, thanks to a skyrocketing surge in IRS agents. Maybe that is why Democrats blocked any language in the Senate that protects Walmart shoppers and other value-shopping families against these new IRS audits. But, man, this bill, they love the wealthy. If the Green New Deal and corporate welfare had a baby, it would look like this. Nearly one-quarter of a trillion dollars in Green New Deal subsidies, government handouts, go to the wealthy and to the biggest, most successful businesses in America. Look at this: A single working mom will pay higher taxes so they can be sent in a government check to wealthy investors and massive corporations. A yardman will send his taxes in a government check to the very well-to-do family whose lawn he is cutting so they can splurge on an $80,000 luxury electric vehicle. Incredibly, to fund all these government handouts, every Senate Democrat and the Vice President chose to impose higher taxes on small businesses so that millionaires and billionaires would be protected from higher State and local taxes. Everyone facing devastating diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS, and Parkinson's will pay a deadly price. This crazy bill increases the cost of healthcare and medicines and kills new lifesaving cures while providing ObamaCare subsidies for the wealthy and those choosing not to return to work, making the worker shortage harsher. Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Penn Wharton School of Business, and the University of Chicago all confirm the government price-fixing scheme could be a death sentence for patients, raising the costs of new drugs, crushing innovation, and killing hundreds of cures. Higher taxes, harassing IRS audits on our Walmart shoppers, no relief from inflation, all as America battles a recession. Let me ask again: Do you really trust the same President and Democrats who drove this economy into recession and drove prices sky high with yet another spending spree? Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.