Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chair, since the gentlewoman, my friend from Tennessee, remarked upon economic growth, let me, as one who was here at the time, perhaps correct the Record. Bill Clinton's economic growth was higher than Ron Reagan's, and that is not in dispute. Barack Obama's economic growth was higher than George W. Bush's. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of the Bush administration, to bring up one point, which, by the way, is closer to 2.1 percent. People here know I follow these issues like a hawk, but the truth is that this budget today that is being put forward is a threat to Medicare and Social Security down the road. The previous speaker said he is concerned about mandatory spending. I gotcha. Put out a plan. Put out a plan on Social Security and Medicare. And don't do it in the backdoor way here as they complain about deficits and they prepare to embrace a tax cut of $1.5 trillion or, over 10 years, $2.2 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which amounted to $2.3 trillion. So we are at $5 trillion worth of tax cuts, and the Clinton administration left us with four balanced budgets and $5 trillion worth of surplus. This is not a budget that supports meaningful tax reform. I am ready, and she knows because of our working together in the past, prepared to work with Republicans on fundamental tax reform. The system is begging for it. Don't call tax reform tax reform when it is really a tax cut. And that is where this is headed, and I think they know that as well. This is a partisan roadmap that has failed in the past. They are using reconciliation instruction so that the majority can ram through a tax plan here. That is all it is about. Last night, by the way, the tradeoff is in some States you can keep the mortgage interest deduction if you are willing to give up the State and local tax deduction. I want to tell you something, I guarantee you right now, based on long history, we will end up keeping both, and they will have to add more to the debt as time goes on. Is this a cut for the wealthy? Eighty percent of the tax cut goes to the top 1 percent in 2027. This is from the Tax Policy Center in Washington. Incidentally, how great is it to have a nonpartisan scoring committee offer us a snapshot of the future? The average tax cut for millionaires, $230,000 a year in 2027. The average tax cut for the top one-tenth of 1 percent is $1 million in the year 2027. The people in this country who need tax relief are the middle class. We should be investing in human capital, community colleges; we should be investing in vocational education. So 45 percent of all households with children will see a tax increase in 2027. Among households earning between $50,000 and $150,000, you are going to see a one-third tax increase in 2027. I look at this and say: Why are we not offering some relief to middle class Americans? Why are we not investing in them? Do we not have enough faith in them to help them get through what have been difficult times with children in college and costs mounting all of the time? Instead, it is back to tax relief for people at the very top. I guess concentrated wealth in America now is not a big issue. I guess the top 1 percent in America who, by the way, aren't even asking for tax relief--that is the irony of this. They are not asking for tax relief. They are arguing for more investment in America rather than concentrating more money in fewer hands. The American people deserve a Tax Code that is based on fairness. Our code should reward hardworking, middle class families, small business, innovation, and ensure that no one, no matter how wealthy they are, can avoid paying their fair share. Our focus is going to be on helping the middle class, creating jobs, boosting wages, and giving people the assistance they need in a complicated economy with their grocery bills and childcare as well. Invest in human capital today.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts on the occasion of its 250th anniversary. Over the course of its storied history, Lenox has been home to people and events which have greatly contributed to the vibrancy of our country's traditions and culture. Located in the heart of the Berkshire Mountains, the town is a wonderful representation of Western Massachusetts and the beauty it holds. Lenox was named after Charles Lennox, the Third Duke of Richmond, who was known and respected for being an advocate of the interests of American colonists in the British House of Lords. The town lived up to the legacy of its namesake as an active participant in the Revolutionary War. In less than a decade after its first town meeting in 1767, Lenox was represented before the Royal Governor of Massachusetts by Colonel John Paterson, who would go on to play a central role in paving the way for the birth of the United States of America. Since then, Lenox has contributed generously to the notable history and culture of not only Massachusetts, but also that of our nation. The region's rustic beauty helped Lenox develop into a lively artists' colony, attracting creative minds the likes of which included writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, photographer James Van Der Zee, and novelist Edith Wharton. The town has facilitated the preservation of The Mount, Ms. Wharton's country estate, which is a National Historic Landmark and welcomes tens of thousands of visitors annually. Lenox is also renowned for its cultivation and encouragement of the musical arts through the annual Tanglewood Music Festival, as well as the Tanglewood Estate which has served as the summer home for the Boston Symphony Orchestra since 1937. The town also boasts the new international campus of Shakespeare and Company, a popular theater group and world-famous center for creative excellence in the arts. Mr. Speaker, the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts has been a place of historical importance and cultural renaissance since its founding in 1767. Additionally, its admirable promotion of the arts is certainly worthy of recognition. Lenox is a place of outstanding character and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. As the town celebrates their 250th anniversary with a town-wide parade, I wish them all the best and continued prosperity.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you just heard the eloquent testimony from Ms. Velazquez about what the people of Puerto Rico are facing right now. I wish that the majority would have approached this process differently. The reauthorization of the FAA could have been a simple, straightforward exercise. It could have and should have been a bipartisan effort. They saddled the FAA with unrelated partisan priorities, incorporated with little input from Democrats, and presented a weak tax package to address the recent major national disasters. As I said when a version of this bill came up earlier this week, I wish the disaster tax relief section were better designed and more extensive. This updated bill still doesn't provide adequate relief to the affected families and communities who desperately need it. You just heard from Ms. Velazquez on that basis. While waiving penalties on the withdrawal of retirement savings and expanding EITC and child tax credit provisions are helpful, the majority inexplicably left out some of the most economically powerful tax incentives on the shelf, including those that would be helpful to rebuild devastated infrastructure. Given this damage and the needs of hard-hit areas, especially the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, I cannot understand why we are not including proven assistance contained in previous disaster tax packages as we did to our family and friends in places like Texas and Louisiana. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge those individuals that Mr. Curbelo pointed out and congratulate them for their courage and their kindness as they attempt to get southern Florida back on its feet. But the key phrase here that my friend from Florida mentioned was the following: Now it is time for us to do our part. ``Our part'' calls for a much more vigorous effort, a much more robust investment, and it could, it should, be done now. We don't have to wait to get this done. We don't have to parcel this out in the small amounts that are being suggested. Now, earlier this week, I rose in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, as well. Today, I am disappointed to say that I am not going to support today's updated version of the legislation either, based on the word ``more.'' I take no issue with a clean 6-month extension of the FAA expenditure authority, but today's bill includes an extensive list of extraneous provisions. If we are to include extraneous measures on this must-pass legislation, then the process of compiling the bill should have been done in a bipartisan manner. Instead, our Republican friends assembled their near-term priorities barely, if at all, consulting the Democratic minority, even though many of these issues are indeed bipartisan. Worse, rather than work together to solve what is rapidly becoming an American humanitarian crisis, they chose to take most of the day off to unveil the tax cut for the wealthiest people in America. The priorities at this moment are misguided. As I noted earlier this week, while I support the disaster tax relief in this bill, the package is plainly insufficient. I had hoped that we might work together in a manner on these provisions, but that has not occurred. Traditionally, in this body, we honored and used to respect what is known as the national principle. It was a code of honor that bound us together when one part of the Nation was beset by disaster. Whether it was an earthquake in California, a hurricane in North Carolina, a tornado in Massachusetts, floods in Missouri, or forest fires in Alabama, we did not ask about gender, race, geography. We simply said the national principle prevails and the Federal Government will offer a robust response. We are failing in that respect to set the precedent today. Instead, unfortunately, this disaster relief package that we will consider does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in American communities in Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the devastation across Puerto Rico. These hurricanes left massive devastation in their wake, and the ongoing situation in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are dire. The situation not only justifies but demands a comprehensive package of incentives and relief to help these communities and their residents get back to their feet. Republicans will hide behind an amendment they added to the Rules Committee last night. It is really a fig leaf, amounting to $68 per person in tax relief. We can do much more for our American brothers and sisters in the Caribbean, especially given that the administration continues to drag its feet in terms of sending an emergency supplemental request. That should be done forthwith. We can do better, and we must do better. They are making vague assurances that we will get around to considering a more extensive package later, but delay and uncertainty will make the situation worse, not better. Today's package should have included other powerful and proven tax incentives that we have extended in the past disaster recovery efforts consistently. I consider this a missed opportunity. We need to do more to help our fellow Americans recover from these tragedies. Therefore, I intend to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and I must tell you that anybody who has witnessed her heartfelt advocacy on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico in the last 24 hours would be moved. I also would say that nobody in this Chamber knows more about what has happened in Puerto Rico right now than the gentlewoman from New York, Nydia Velazquez.

Mr. NEAL

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a sufficient opportunity here going forward, as the previous gentlemen has spoken, to discuss the whole issue of flood insurance. I just don't think this is the moment to be discussing the flood insurance initiatives. Instead, I think that ought to be subject to a full-throttled debate in this institution about getting those things done. This is not, I think, the appropriate forum for accomplishing that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the gentleman from California that when you talk about graduate medical education, believe me, in Massachusetts, we are for graduate medical education. Be assured of that. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we all support reauthorization of the FAA. What has happened here again is a breakdown in the conversation that used to meld this institution together. There was a chance on Friday for Republicans to consult with us in the minority, put together a bipartisan package of many very important provisions that are important to Mr. Curbelo, important to certainly Texas, important to the Virgin Islands. It is certainly important to Puerto Rico. Let me give you a quick example of how this institution used to work. We used to call this the national principle. The national principle essentially said if there was an earthquake in California, we all rose to the support of California. If there were forest fires in Alabama, which there were, we would all come to the aid of the people of Alabama. If there was a horrific, torrential downpour in Texas, we simply said: We don't ask if it is a red State or a blue State, or if they are Libertarians or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans. We said: They are members of the American family. We said: Do what has to be done and then send us the bill. We believe that there will be ample opportunity to debate and discuss the size of the portionality at that moment. Instead, where we had this opportunity right here to provide a robust package to the people of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, we decide to come back with an anemic proposal. We are coming up short on our responsibility. We had a tornado in my hometown 5 years ago. Those Federal employees did a spectacular job everywhere in eight communities, and nobody said: Too much government. They said: Let's fix this for, again, the American family to get this straightened out. I have said to Mr. Curbelo, and I will repeat it, we will put up 195 Democrats immediately for a bigger package for the people of Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, not to piecemeal this together. By the way, let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for those of us from the Northeast, the idea that 90 Members of this institution voted against direct relief just a couple of weeks ago looking for a pay-for, I wonder if they are going to use that same application of consistency when we get to the tax proposals that are about to consume our time. We want to provide adequate relief to these families and the communities that need it. We could do this in the next 48 hours without any problem whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this time, because this is not big enough and not supportive enough of the American family, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act, for one simple reason. This is an anemic response to these disasters, whether they occur on the mainland of the United States or within American possessions. This should have been done on Friday afternoon with the two parties working together. Instead, once again, this was put together by one party, with minimal input from our side. These are all members of the American family that have been impacted by what has happened with this terrible weather. The chance here for us to work together to make this an expanded package, where we could be talking about a host of opportunities for these folks who have been put in such a precarious situation, is now being missed. There are 90 Members of this Congress who actually voted against direct aid in the past for relief for members of the American family, where we should have taken the position here, clearly: Let's try to figure out what we can do for a robust tax package, what we can do for immediate aid, and highlight the role that FEMA plays. And I certainly have expressed to Mr. Curbelo time and again I am there on board. I just think this needs to be more, and I think that is the position that we are offering today. Furthermore, a partisan position had to be taken in terms of many priorities that we should have been consulted on, and even those could have been turned into bipartisan moments. I support the disaster relief that is in this bill, but it is clear that the package is woefully inadequate. I would hope that we could work together on these provisions. The disaster relief package included in this bill does not provide the comprehensive package of incentives and relief that will drive investment and speed up recovery in the American communities that include Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Without the fix that we want on this side, the effect of lost revenue is going to mean that money is lost that otherwise would be needed for normal operations and the response effort. It is going to take years to adequately respond to what has happened and the devastation that these folks are up against. We need to be sitting here, both parties working together, to say: They are all members of the American family. Let's get it done. I consider this a missed opportunity, and I hope that we can do more in the next few days to get back on track to help them bounce back from these, indeed, tragedies. We should be sitting down here in the next 48 hours and putting together a massive package of relief for these States and for these possessions and making sure that they have what is necessary, rather than doing a piecemeal fix on what is sure to be a very tormented time for members of these communities and these States and these possessions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 1235, the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act, which I introduced along with my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr). People in Kentucky think that they invented basketball. It was actually invented in Massachusetts. But I want to thank him personally, as well as professionally, for the good work that he has done in helping to bring about this day. As the Hall of Fame celebrates its 125th anniversary of the invention of basketball, this commemorative coin symbolizes all the sport has accomplished since its humble beginnings in a YMCA gymnasium in Springfield, Massachusetts. This truly American game continues to be played by men and women at every level and on every continent. In December of 1891, a physical education professor named Dr. James Naismith created a game with a simple objective: throw a round ball into a peach basket that was suspended 10 feet above the ground. While only one basket was made available during those first games, it would soon become quite popular with students. Thanks to the network of YMCAs throughout the country and the game's success on various college campuses, the sport soon became a national phenomenon. By 1894, basketball was being played around the Nation and in dozens of countries around the world. During the 1920s and 1930s, teams like the Original Celtics and the New York Renaissance carried professional basketball to the national conscience for the first time. Internationally, popularity of the new sport from America led to the formation of the International Basketball Federation, which was pivotal in adding basketball to the Summer Olympic Games in 1936. Eventually, the National Basketball Association was founded in 1946, and continues to enjoy great success. The Basketball Hall of Fame inducted its first class in 1959, despite the lack of any physical structure. They would get their first home on the campus of Springfield College in 1968, just a short way from the game's first site. Thousands of visitors came to the campus to see memorabilia and be inspired by the stories of the sport's early days. As the game skyrocketed in national popularity in the 1980s, with icons like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, the Hall of Fame found the need to expand. As the mayor of Springfield at the time, I helped to ensure a location on the banks of the Connecticut River. In 1985, the Hall reopened with a three-level museum with hundreds of pieces of memorabilia and displays. The admiration for the sport forced the Hall to expand once again, in 2002, with a state-of-the-art structure just steps away from the old facility. Today, the Hall welcomes 6 million visitors annually. They are dazzled with its interactive displays and exhibits. As of this year, the Hall has inducted 365 of the greatest players, coaches, and referees. Players like Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Bradley, and coaches like John Wooden and Pat Summitt have been honored for their contributions to the sport. The Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coin is the ideal way for the legacy of these great athletes and coaches to be remembered for decades to come. With no cost to the American taxpayer, the surcharges on these coins will go to further the museum's curation efforts. The proceeds will also go toward educational programs to promote good sportsmanship and respect on and off the court. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Hall of Fame on multiple projects for more than 30 years. It is a terrific tax-exempt organization that works tirelessly to preserve the history and educate people about this truly American game. I believe that basketball instills the virtues that this country was built upon and gives Americans someone to aspire to be. As former NBA player and United States Senator Bill Bradley put it: ``Sports is a metaphor for overcoming obstacles and achieving against great odds. Athletes, in times of difficulty, can be important role models.'' For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1235, and a special note of thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for keeping the debate open so that I could actually speak on this. Again, as I close, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr). He was terrific in his help on this bill.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate The Honorable Jane F. Garvey on being the recipient of The 2017 L. Welch Pogue Award for Lifetime Achievement in Aviation. Over the course of her distinguished career, she has delivered decades of dedicated service in top leadership roles within both the public and private sectors. Jane Garvey grew up in Western Massachusetts. She graduated from Mount Saint Mary College in New York and then went on to attain her master's degree from Mount Holyoke College, where I served on the Board of Trustees for many years. Jane notably served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from 1997 to 2002. She was the first FAA Administrator to serve a full five-year term and also the first woman to lead the agency. She directed the FAA through the formidable events of September 11, 2001 with compassion, steady guidance, and assurance of mission. She also led the agency through Y2K preparation and implementation. Prior to this, Jane was Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. She has also previously served as director of Boston's Logan International Airport, as well as commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. Currently, Jane is the North America Chairman of Meridiam, one of the largest investors of public- private partnerships in the U.S. She serves on several noteworthy boards, including the Bipartisan Policy Center and the United Airlines Supervisory Board. Jane also has the distinction of serving as Chairman of the FAA's Management Advisory Council and the U.S. Department of Commerce's Investment Advisory Council. Throughout her career, Jane Garvey has been recognized many times for her outstanding leadership and public service. These awards include the National Air Transportation Association's Distinguished Service Award, National Award of Excellence for Public Leaders, Woman of the Year Award for Women in Transportation and Women in Politics, and the 2017 Eno Transportation Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award to name just a few. Furthermore, in 2003, she was honored as one of the 100 Heroes in Aviation History. Mr. Speaker, Jane Garvey is known for her deliberate collaboration and ability to bring stakeholders together. She is a person of outstanding character and I would like to once again thank her not only for her exemplary leadership and service, but also for her continued dedication to educating and supporting young, inspired professionals in careers of aviation and transportation. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as I stand in support of this legislation, it is important to acknowledge that it not only addresses the needs of the residents who are cleaning up after Harvey, but it ensures that we will also avoid a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States. What is important about this moment is the following: We are adhering to what is known as the national principle, and the national principle means that, if there is an earthquake in California, we rise to the aid of the people of California. If there is a hurricane in Texas, we rise to the aid of the people in Texas. If there is a tornado in Springfield, Massachusetts, as there was a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Springfield, Massachusetts. If there were horrific forest fires in the State of Alabama, as happened a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Alabama. Now, why is that important? Because we don't check gender, and we don't check race, and we don't say: Is it a blue State or a red State or what is the political affiliation of those who are affected? Instead, we say: The national principle ensures that this is about the American family in moments of great challenge and great difficulty, and we don't use the opportunity to remind people of what the budget might look like at that moment. Instead, we come to their assistance and we figure out how to pay for it later on. So on this occasion, there is a very important consideration that is married, and it includes the idea that, with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats on this side, we are going to not only do what we are supposed to do in terms of raising the national debt, but we will come to the assistance of members of the American family, as I, a moment ago, described. Now, let me point out something else as well. We need to stop playing games with the national debt limit. We had tax cuts here in 2001 and 2003 that cut Federal revenue to 15 percent of gross domestic product, despite the fact that the historic postwar norm average is closer to 17.5 percent. Actually, in some of those years before that, it rose to 18.5 cents on the dollar--a reasonable expenditure. But instead, as those numbers slipped to 15 percent, the argument became somehow that it was about future payments. The argument over the debt limit is about expenses incurred, what we have obligated ourselves to with veterans benefits, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq. And even though I voted against the war in Iraq, we need to come to the aid of those veterans and those veterans hospitals, and we need to come to the assistance of those 1 million new veterans who were created because of it. And again, not asking questions, is it a blue State expenditure? is it a red State expenditure? It is about the national principle. The idea that we would cast doubt on the full faith and credit of the United States to earn a few political points and to try to convince people that this is about future spending, it is not about future spending. This is about the credit card having come due for, in most instances, reasonable expenditures, not the least of which includes the obligations we have to Social Security, Medicare, and our senior citizens. So this agreement that we have rendered today is a reasonable and sensible bipartisan achievement, and we should use this as an example and as a template for what we might do going forward to address many of the challenges that are going to confront the American people. And be assured of this: Whether it is in Florida or it is in Houston, the expenditure requirements here are going to bulge, and we should not be dismissive of that. So raise the debt limit and come to the aid of the American family today.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a good step in the right direction. I hope that we will also encourage the Department of Justice in addition to what we are attempting to do here. As Mr. Roskam knows, they are part of the challenge in front of us as well, but I think this is a certain, forthright step on behalf of those who have been maligned in terms of reputation and their business activities in this moment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1843, the Restraining Excessive Seizure of Property through the Exploitation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Tools Act--more simply, the RESPECT Act. Fundamentally, this legislation is about stopping abusive civil asset seizure practices. Too often, honest small business owners were treated like criminals and had their bank accounts seized by the Federal Government for making frequent deposits from cash sales. The law at issue today is the Bank Secrecy Act, which set up new reporting requirements for certain activities, like depositing more than $10,000 in cash. The purpose of the law is to limit criminal business activity conducted in cash, money laundering, drug transactions, and criminal enterprises. Thus, systematically depositing amounts just short of this threshold, is deemed an illegal attempt to structure bank transactions to avoid the reporting requirement. Over the past 2 years, a number of law-abiding small businesses with high volumes of cash sales testified before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight describing just how this law was being applied by the IRS and the Department of Justice to seize their bank accounts. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle immediately denounced this practice and sought to have the seized amounts returned. In October of 2014, the IRS changed its policy on enforcement. Now it only will seize funds of taxpayers where the money is being deposited from an illegal source. H.R. 1843 codifies this policy change, excludes interest received by taxpayers on the return of seized property from tax, and provides notice and hearing rights to taxpayers. The IRS, however, is only one side of the issue. United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions also must act to right this wrong against these small business owners. The IRS referred 255 petitions to the Department of Justice from small business owners seeking the return of their property. As of June 2017, the Department still had over 180 petitions to review. The Department of Justice should and must work faster. I thank Congressman Roskam, my friend; and the Democrat lead cosponsor, my friend as well, Congressman Joe Crowley, for their hard work on this legislation; and also the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, John Lewis, for his leadership on this issue. In closing, I want to take a look at how the position taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice affected a small bakery in Connecticut. For almost 100 years--three generations--the Vocatura family has operated a bakery in Norwich, Connecticut. They sell sandwiches and fresh bread, lots of low-dollar purchases. Until recently, they didn't accept credit cards; so most of their business was in cash. According to press reports, between March 2007 and April 2013, the Vocatura brothers made hundreds of deposits in amounts ranging from $7,000 to $9,900. The bank tellers told them that they had to fill out lots of extra paperwork for deposits over $10,000, so the Vocatura brothers made sure to deposit their receipts more often. They didn't realize they were breaking the law by consciously avoiding making deposits over $10,000. In May of 2013, the IRS enforced the structuring laws and seized the bakery's checking account with more than $68,000 on hand. The IRS held on to the Vocatura's money for 3 years without ever bringing a case before a judge. The brothers filed a motion, demanding the return of their money; and in 2016, the IRS capitulated. This story is similar to others that we have heard. This legislation would ensure that no other small business is put in this position. I urge support on both sides of the aisle for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.