Judy Chu

“I want the House to pass this bill. Past tax laws stopped people from deducting theft and casualty losses unless there was a declared disaster. This bill lets victims of fraud, theft, and damaged homes deduct those losses on their taxes, even for past years.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 9500, the Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Miller and Mr. Suozzi, for their leadership on this bill. This bill corrects a longstanding policy mistake in the tax code. During President Trump’s first administration, Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--or what Democrats like to call the Trump tax scam--where they chose to limit the deduction for casualty and theft losses by limiting that deduction only to those losses that were incurred in a Presidential-declared disaster. Then, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act--or what we Democrats like to call the big, ugly bill--doubled down on this policy, extending it permanently. This policy left many financially harmed taxpayers even worse off beyond just their financial losses. Victims of theft, victims of fraud, and those that suffered casualty losses due to no fault of their own were now unable to deduct those losses from their taxes, a double whammy after suffering such a loss. I am glad to see that my Republican colleagues have seen the error of their ways and have decided to reverse this policy. Additionally, I am glad to see that the policy allows retroactive relief for those who were the victims of fraud during the time this policy was in effect. Additionally, I acknowledge the tireless work of my colleagues, Representatives John Larson and Joe Courtney, who for years have been advocating on behalf of their constituents who suffered significant losses due to crumbling foundations in their homes as a result of pyrrhotite in a local quarry. Under this bill, these taxpayers will also be eligible for retroactive relief. In sum, this bill is a long overdue reversal of a policy that harmed many taxpayers, and I am glad to support this change to give taxpayers, who may have suffered an unfortunate life event, fair treatment by our tax system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this bill. Right now, if a dishonest tax preparer lies on someone's taxes without their knowledge, the IRS can audit that taxpayer forever. This bill stops that. It makes sure the IRS only goes after the bad preparer, not innocent people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9499, the Protecting Taxpayers from Ghost Preparers Act. I thank my colleague, Ms. Malliotakis, for her leadership on this bill. This bill helps victims of tax fraud by ensuring that the IRS is penalizing the bad actor and not the taxpayer. The bill addresses circumstances under which a tax preparer commits fraud without the knowledge of the taxpayer. The taxpayer may not find out about a false or fraudulent return until years after it was filed, when the IRS audits the return. Under current law, the IRS generally must begin an audit within 3 years after a return is filed. This is commonly referred to as a 3-year statute of limitations. However, when a return involves fraud with an intent to evade tax, the IRS has an indefinite amount of time to audit the return. In other words, there is no statute of limitations. Current law does not distinguish as to when the fraud is committed by a taxpayer or when it is committed by a third party, such as the taxpayer’s return preparer who files a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax. In both situations, the statute of limitations for audits is held open indefinitely, and the taxpayer is on the hook. The bill would fix this trap for unwitting taxpayers. The bill provides that misconduct solely by a third party, such as the taxpayer’s return preparer, can no longer indefinitely suspend the statute of limitations for a taxpayer. It makes clear that only an intent to evade tax by the taxpayer would hold the statute of limitations open indefinitely for a taxpayer. This bill protects innocent taxpayers from being indefinitely exposed to IRS enforcement actions when a false or fraudulent return was filed by the return preparer without the taxpayer’s knowledge. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction for protecting taxpayers from fraudulent preparers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this bill. It lets the National Taxpayer Advocate share opinions in court cases that affect taxpayer rights. This will help make sure taxpayers are heard in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9498, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act. I thank my colleagues Mr. Steube and Ms. DelBene for their leadership on the bill. This bill would allow the National Taxpayer Advocate to file amicus briefs in court cases that broadly affect the rights of taxpayers. The National Taxpayer Advocate serves as the voice of the taxpayer within the Internal Revenue Service and before Congress. She is the head of the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that advocates for taxpayers’ rights. Each year, the National Taxpayer Advocate submits an annual report to Congress outlining the top issues facing taxpayers along with the legislative recommendations to strengthen taxpayer rights, reduce taxpayer burden, and improve IRS performance. In the most recent annual report, the National Taxpayer Advocate recommended that Congress authorize her office to file amicus briefs on issues affecting fundamental taxpayers’ rights. Current law does not authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to submit amicus briefs and share her views on Federal tax cases broadly affecting taxpayer rights. This bill would provide such authority. This bill is a targeted, commonsense measure that ensures taxpayer voices are heard in Federal tax cases and reinforces fairness, transparency, and accountability in our tax system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this bill. Americans who are held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad should not face tax fines and late fees when they return home. This bill gives them and their spouses extra time to file their taxes, and it refunds the penalties they were wrongly charged.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 9496, the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. I thank my colleagues, Ms. Tenney and Mr. Beyer, for their leadership on this bill. This is a commonsense bill that would prevent hostages, detainees, and their spouses from experiencing unnecessary financial hardships when they are unable to meet their Federal tax obligations. Often, hostages and detained Americans return home to massive tax bills from the IRS in the form of late payments, interest, and penalties, sometimes totaling tens of thousands of dollars. However, the IRS does not currently have the authority to waive filing deadlines, interest, or penalties. This bill would address this issue by postponing tax deadlines and assessments of interest and penalties for any U.S. national held hostage or detained abroad. It would also extend relief to the spouse of the hostage or detainee. Additionally, the bill enables the Secretary of the Treasury to refund and abate any relevant interest, penalties, or addition to tax that was assessed or collected on hostages and detainees since January 2021. It also requires the Secretary to ensure that databases and information systems are updated to permit proper tracking of deadlines and limitation periods applicable to individuals entitled to relief. This bill would simply remove one more unnecessary obstacle and worry for our fellow Americans during an extraordinarily difficult time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want to help Purple Heart recipients find work. But this bill does not actually mention or help them. If Republicans want to pass a bill for Purple Heart recipients, we should vote on that bill directly instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Helping Purple Heart recipients find employment is wonderful and laudable. There is nothing in H.R. 8884 that requires SSA to test the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. It is not mentioned in the underlying bill at all. At a Ways and Means Committee markup, Ranking Member Larson asked the majority if SSA had shared information on what demonstration projects it had planned. They said: No. Trust us. In fact, when the bill was considered at the Rules Committee a few weeks ago, Ranking Member McGovern made a motion to add a new section to the rule that would have provided for immediate consideration of Representative Scott’s Purple Heart bill on the House floor. Republicans all voted ``no’’ on this motion, including Representative Scott himself. If Republicans want to do the Purple Heart bill, let’s vote on that bill, not on H.R. 8884, which doesn’t even mention Purple Heart recipients. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).”

“I want the House to vote against this bill. It lets the government test changes to disability benefits without protecting people from having their monthly payments cut. It also takes money away from customer service at the Social Security Administration, which is already understaffed.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are dealing with skyrocketing prices and vulnerable populations like seniors and people with disabilities are struggling to get help with their Social Security benefits because this administration has created a customer service crisis through reckless staffing cuts, it is shameful that Republicans have chosen to bring H.R. 8884 to the floor. This bill won’t lower costs, won’t improve customer service, and won’t make it easier for people with disabilities to access the benefits they have earned. Instead, it opens the door to cutting those benefits while making SSA’s customer service crisis even worse. H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, aims to remove barriers to employment faced by individuals receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI, benefits. It tries to do this by authorizing the Social Security Administration to conduct demonstration projects designed to test program changes that may encourage work. Let me be clear that Democrats strongly support the goal of reducing unnecessary barriers for disabled Americans who want to explore returning to work. Over the years, Democrats many times have supported giving SSA this demonstration authority. However, the bill before us today tries to accomplish this worthwhile goal in the worst possible way. Instead of protecting beneficiaries, it hands the Trump administration broad new authority to experiment with Social Security disability benefits with virtually no meaningful guardrails. First, let me be clear about what Social Security disability benefits are for. SSDI supports some of the most vulnerable Americans who have severe and long-lasting medical impairments that prevent them from being able to work at a level needed to financially support themselves. SSDI is an earned benefit, with the average beneficiary having worked and paid into the system for 22 years before becoming disabled. It also has stringent eligibility criteria. To qualify, applicants must provide extensive medical evidence and undergo a rigorous eligibility determination process. Many applicants are initially denied and must appeal a process that often takes a year or more. Even after all levels of appeal, SSA typically finds only about one in three applicants eligible. SSDI benefits are extremely low, at an average of about $20,000 a year. Most SSDI beneficiaries could not survive without these monthly payments, and that is why we must ensure that any potential change to the program does not put those benefits at risk. Yet, this bill explicitly leaves that possibility on the table. Rather than protecting earned disability benefits, it gives the administration broad discretion to test policies that could reduce them. This isn’t some abstract policy debate. Here is what this could look like in the real world. Picture this: You have been on Social Security disability for the past 10 years after a devastating car accident rendered you unable to work and support yourself. Your monthly SSDI check isn’t much, but it is the reason you can pay your bills and keep food on the table. Then, one day, the Social Security Administration contacts you about an opportunity that sounds promising--a demonstration program that will make it easier for you to get a part-time job while remaining on SSDI. This sounds great to you because it could mean some extra income for you and your family. You sign up and start working only to realize that you are no better off financially because for every dollar you make at your new job, you lose a dollar in SSDI benefits. After a few months, the demands of the new job start taking a toll on your health, and it becomes clear that it isn’t sustainable. You contact SSA to revoke your participation in the demonstration so that you can start receiving your full SSDI benefit amount again, but SSA doesn’t reinstate your benefits right away. Two weeks later, you still have to call SSA’s 1-800 number every day, trying to get your benefits back. Every time, you are on hold for more than an hour. Even when you do get through to a staff member, they say there is a backlog. No one can tell you when you will get your check. Rent is due in a few days. You don’t have the money. You feel desperate. That is exactly the kind of outcome this bill fails to protect. Here is why. The problem is simple. This bill only guarantees that an individual’s total income will not be reduced due to participation in a demonstration project. That deceptive phrasing does not guarantee that your Social Security disability benefits won’t be cut or reduced because you are earning money at a part-time job. These are two very different things. The empty promise of no reduction in total income leaves the administration with enormous discretion over people’s earned benefits. This isn’t a hypothetical concern. The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cut disability benefits and make it harder for disabled Americans to qualify. They have shown us exactly what they want to do given the opportunity. During the first Trump administration, President Trump repeatedly tried to throw disabled people off their benefits by making it harder to qualify and subjecting them to more frequent continuing disability reviews. He proposed a budget plan that tried to slash disability benefits by $50 billion over 10 years, and a key part of that plan was to push beneficiaries into demonstration programs. No past demonstrations had indicated that savings of any level, let alone $50 billion, could be possible without punitive measures to cut beneficiaries who can’t return to work. Just last year, the Trump administration was reportedly considering a plan to eliminate age as a factor in deciding whether someone is unable to work and eligible for SSDI, which could have blocked an estimated 750,000 people from receiving benefits. Thankfully, this plan was dropped after enormous public outcry, but that shouldn’t be enough to convince us that this administration isn’t still gunning to slash benefits. An administration that has a track record of trying to cut Americans’ earned disability benefits should not be given any new authority to conduct open-ended experiments that could reduce benefits. This couldn’t come at a worse time. Thanks to the administration cutting over 7,000 staff at Social Security, our constituents are waiting for hours on the phone and facing extremely long backlogs when trying to get their issues resolved. SSDI beneficiaries rely on their benefits every month to make ends meet. They can’t afford delays or roadblocks to getting the full amount of the benefits they have earned. To make matters worse, this bill would require any new demonstration programs to be funded by SSA’s operating budget, the same budget that supports the agency’s customer service. In other words, this bill asks SSA to take money away from serving the public to run experiments that could jeopardize people’s disability benefits. When the Ways and Means Committee marked up this bill last month, Ranking Member John Larson offered a commonsense amendment that would have addressed these concerns by requiring demonstration projects to be funded not by SSA’s customer service budget but by the SSDI trust funds, and by adding guardrails to what the Trump administration might do with the demonstration authority. Those guardrails included ensuring that no one would see their benefits, not just total income but actual benefits, reduced due to participation in a demonstration. The amendment would also have ensured that no demonstration could be used to deny eligibility for new SSDI applicants and would have required the SSA to provide notice and public comments on the details of any planned demonstrations. These were basic protections to ensure that people with disabilities couldn’t lose their earned benefits simply for participating in a demonstration project, yet every Republican voted this down. If Republicans truly cared about making life better for people on Social Security disability benefits, we would be discussing bills to increase monthly benefits, fix the appeals process so people with disabilities aren’t waiting years to get approved for benefits, and fix customer service at SSA by undoing this administration’s disastrous staffing cuts. Instead, Republicans have brought us a bill that gives the Trump administration new authority to experiment with Social Security disability benefits while failing to protect the very people it claims to help. People with disabilities deserve certainty, not experiments with the benefits they have earned. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,’’ and I reserve the balance of my time.”