Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 52nd closed rule of the 110th Congress, a new record for the United States Congress. And I oppose, also, the underlying legislation which would have been passed by this House in a bipartisan fashion without the inclusion of two partisan and controversial measures that have already drawn veto threats from President Bush's senior advisers.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert a Statement of Administrative Policy for H.R. 5719 in the Congressional Record outlining the administration's oppositions to these two provisions.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5719--Taxpayer Assistance and

Simplification Act of 2008

(Rep. Rangel (D) New York and 16 cosponsors.)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-

called ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of

2008.'' The bill includes provisions that would impose new

administrative burdens on the trustees of Health Savings

Accounts (HSAs). These new burdens on HSA administrators are

unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent

with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their

inception, and could undermine efforts by employers,

individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and

improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take

greater control of health care decision-making. If H.R. 5719

were presented to the President with these provisions, his

senior advisors would recommend he would veto the bill.

Also, the Administration strongly opposes the provisions of

the bill that would repeal the current statutory

authorization for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private

debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000

cases have been referred to contractors, representing over

$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program

would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the

next ten years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on

Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the

Government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by

the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous

Statements of Administration Policy, the Administration

strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not

consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced

approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting

outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to

the President with these provisions, his senior advisors

would recommend that he veto the bill.

The first partisan provision unnecessarily included by our friends, the Democrats, in this otherwise noncontroversial measure would require all HSA account holders to verify independently the qualified nature of medical expenses for all withdrawals subject to those transactions not substantiated to income taxes.

In theory, it is extremely important to make sure that health savings accounts are being used for qualified medical expenses and not for everyday use. Unfortunately, this language takes the reporting process way too far and risks discouraging health savings accounts enrollment, limiting patient choice, and further burdening our banks and financial organizations with implementing the substantial requirements.

The current system requires that nonqualified withdrawals from a health savings account are subject to individual income taxes as well as a 10 percent penalty. If the Internal Revenue Service is not enforcing these penalties, it should be, and it would make sense that Congress would take the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate audits take place. Our constituents' health and our Nation's financial institutions should not suffer from the Federal Government's inefficiency.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has said that this provision would save money, though they are unable to determine how much savings would result from the newly captured penalties and taxes that make HSAs, health savings accounts, less attractive to consumers, in turn, giving them less health care choices.

I might add that HSAs are there to provide consumers that do not have the tax advantages that corporate employees have, it gives employees health care on a pretax basis and is very important to families across this country.

But consumers are not the only ones who would suffer. Introducing a new step of independent substantiation would increase costs for banks and account administrators. Should that happen, it is very possible that they will pass on these costs to employees, and ultimately, consumers.

Over the past several weeks, Democrats have loudly complained about the charges that banks and other commercial lending institutions pass on to their customers, yet provisions allow for the possibility of increasing those costs further when it now applies to an HSA. I think Members of this body should be opposed to that.

The other controversial and partisan provisions included in this legislation would revoke the Internal Revenue Service's authority to contract out collection authority for those small accounts that in the private sector would often be referred to as ``old and cold.'' In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these unpaid taxes exist, meaning that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover the taxes not paid for by these people who are not paying.

This new practice, which begins as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in approximately $2.2 billion in the first 10 years alone. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that will have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government in the future.

The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, has been hugely

successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes. Mr. Speaker, that means that $30 million worth of taxes that the IRS chose not to collect has been brought in as a result of what these outside collectors have done. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints with the IRS, not one of which has been validated.

Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenues that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other new, big spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, supposedly to protect the dues of big government union bosses.

They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already contract out their services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it to be said that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private collectors . . . and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could learn from their best practices as it works to resolve longstanding problems with its debt collection activities.''

As well, in July of 2007, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 full agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have otherwise received, which was about one-eighth of what it cost for these nonexisting services to be paid for.

In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly efficient private contracting. Instead, the IRS will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise, and resources on higher priority, more complex cases.

Last night in the most-closed-Congress-in-history Rules Committee, I offered an amendment coauthored by my friend Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas to strike this unfortunate provision, which was unsurprisingly defeated by the Democrat majority along party lines.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule and the underlying legislation that includes these two provisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get it. The IRS has a lot of work to do, and then as accounts become older because they don't get to those and they become 2, 3, 4, 5 years old but they are still debts that are owed this country, the IRS now, or at least we are led to believe this, would go collect that money when they hadn't done it their first 5 years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not true. They will not go collect these accounts. They are old. And the point is it's still a debt that is owed to the United States Government. And that's where these private collectors come in. Private collectors that collect for at least 40 out of 50 States. Private collectors that have a 100 percent rating.

Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to say is that the IRS probably does do a good job with what it does do. But when it has not handled an account, it is unwise and bad for the taxpayer not to receive that money that is due from its services and from the taxes that took place, and that's what these collectors are all about. To say that they're not as efficient an outside collector as an IRS collector is silly because these cases are ones the IRS didn't want to handle in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Arizona's letting us know about her understanding of what's happening.

What I would like to tell her is that a number of companies, including the National Association for the Self-Employed, National Association of Health Underwriters, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Principal Financial Group, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Financial Services Roundtable, the HSA Council, the UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WellPoint, these people that employ people that utilize the HSA, are all saying it will have a negative impact upon the use of HSAs making it easier for individuals to get and have health care on a pretax basis.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do not have any additional speakers other than my close.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, today is Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties.

This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the Federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week, April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If this previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. Let me say that again in regular English. That means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make sure that all these hardworking taxpayers that we are talking about won't have to pay an increase of taxes because the new Democrat majority wants tax increases for every single taxpayer in this country.

Today is an opportunity where we can make those tax cuts permanent to

make sure that our Tax Code encourages not only employers, but employees, and to grow our economy. It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, thereby reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, the tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax credit for increasing research activities.

In summary, I would just say this, that what it will do is to maintain in a time of uncertainty the ability for America to continue to grow jobs, which means that America can compete globally. On the other hand, if you are for tax increases, if you want to tax taxpayers more, just simply vote with the Democrat majority.

Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of a no more fitting action for Congress during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief to Americans as they provide debt relief the same day to the world's poorest countries. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of taxpayers who want to continue economic growth in America, I say let's vote to make the tax cuts permanent.

Amendment to H. Res. 1102 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain

other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)

an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by

Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered

as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time that he is yielding me to discuss H.R. 2634, the Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Cancellation Act of 2007. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation passed just 2 weeks ago providing aid to mostly African and Caribbean countries to fight AIDS and promote development programs in underdeveloped countries, including programs to improve food, water, the treatment of other infectious diseases, poverty alleviation programs, microcredit, schools and teachers, legal aid, agricultural assistance and biomedical research.

Today's legislation would follow up on this enormous prior financial commitment by further reducing or eliminating the debt obligations of the world's poorest nations. It attempts to accomplish this goal by creating a framework to having the debts of low-income countries owed to the United States and to international financial institutions eliminated.

To do this, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate the full cancellation of these countries' debts with the Paris Club, the IMF, and the World Bank, and to reach agreements on future creditor transparency and responsible lending.

It improves oversight by ensuring that countries receiving this debt relief have economies that are capable of redirecting their debt services payments, and requires a GAO audit of countries where illegal loans may have been made. Finally, it includes a sense of Congress that the U.S. should pay off $600 million worth of arrears to multilateral development banks.

Madam Speaker, no one in this body disputes the worthiness of this goal that is enshrined within this legislation. The reduction of global poverty and suffering around the world is a laudable goal, and it is certainly in our national interests to combat conditions that may breed the hopelessness and poverty that allows dictators and terrorists to thrive.

So it is doubtlessly important that the most heavily indebted poor countries be relieved of these kinds of crushing debt that prevents their future development, self-sufficiency and the improvement of their citizens' lives.

This policy should be implemented, along with other policies that increase public sector investment and decrease the barriers to trade with these countries, as well as ensuring that the countries eligible for this relief do not encourage terrorist activities or abuse human rights.

I am surprised, however, that Speaker Pelosi didn't see the irony in scheduling this step forward for developing nations on the first legislative week after handing them a serious defeat by turning off the fast track authority for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In other words, here we're trying to help poor countries and now the decision is made that we won't engage in trade with them that would help their countries also grow economically free.

While giving the most heavily indebted countries relief from crushing and unserviceable debt is necessary to increase their future development, it is simply not sufficient. The economies of these countries must be more integrated with the rest of the globe to provide their citizens with real choices and development alternatives for their future, and increased trade with America is a great way of accomplishing this.

So while I appreciate the Financial Services Committee's efforts on the issue of improving conditions for the world's poorest countries, I remind my colleagues that development does not occur in a vacuum, and that by postponing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have effectively told all of these countries, people who should be our friends and we should be concerned about more than just their debt, but about their economic viability, we've said that Congress is less concerned about promoting trade with them and growing their economies than it is with complying with the demands of labor union bosses in an election year.

I encourage the Democrat leadership to take a long-term and more holistic view of global poverty, recognizing that these cycles of abject poverty cannot be broken without creating the conditions that encourage private sector investment, such as respect for contracts and rule of law and that it also encourages international trade.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a broader policy of understanding poverty and the United States' role in helping to make our world better would include trade and would include encouraging the private markets around the world.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend of any remaining speakers that he has.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy from the White House on this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2634--Jubilee Act for

Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008

(Rep. Waters (D) CA and 104 cosponsors.)

The Administration has provided strong international

leadership on debt relief for the world's most heavily-

indebted poor countries. Ongoing debt relief initiatives,

including the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)

Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative

(MDRI), are expected to provide over $100 billion in debt

reduction to 32 countries and another eight countries could

eventually qualify under these initiatives. To ensure that

gains from debt relief are available for the long term, the

Administration led efforts in the multilateral development

banks to use a debt sustainability framework to determine the

appropriate mix of grants and lending. While the

Administration believes the goals of this bill are laudable,

the Administration does not support H.R 2634 for the reasons

stated below.

The countries to be covered by the bill are managing their

debt, and some of the countries that would be covered by this

bill are now actively working towards expanded access to

international capital markets. Providing debt relief to

countries that can service their debt sends the wrong

message, and undermines efforts to assist countries in

developing sound debt management practices that will allow

them to transition gradually toward access to private capital

markets.

Any debt relief should be conditioned on the adoption of

policies that promote sound economic practices. Policy

conditionality is important and often necessary to ensure

that debt relief is used in a manner that will promote

economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor.

The budget impact of such a program would be significant,

and would require trade-offs that could affect key foreign

policy priorities. The Treasury Department estimates that the

budget cost to forgive the $2.5 billion in nominal debt

(including loan guarantees) owed to the United States by

countries that do not currently qualify under the HIPC

Initiative would be approximately $1 billion. This cost

estimate assumes that all potentially eligible International

Development Association countries would qualify for debt

relief in FY 2008 and would change depending on the year that

each country qualifies. These countries also owe the World

Bank and IMF over $32 billion in nominal debt, in addition to

other bilateral and multilateral debts. While the bill calls

for international financial institutions to fund debt relief

from internal resources, the availability of such resources

is very likely to be limited, as recently demonstrated by the

requirements for donor funding of the MDRI. Any additional

debt relief from the international financial institutions is

therefore likely to require substantial additional

contributions from the U.S., in addition to the estimated $1

billion cost of the bilateral debt relief portion of the

proposal. Rather than embarking on expanded debt relief, the

United States must focus on fulfilling its current

commitments.

The Responsible Lending Framework described by the bill

could also hinder access by poor countries to private

capital. The bill calls for the creation of a binding

international legal framework for lending by all

multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. While we

recognize the goals underlying such a framework--to encourage

sustainable lending and borrowing levels--the prospects for

such an agreement are doubtful. Given the wide range of

international creditors, creation of such a framework would

be very difficult and enforcement would be nearly impossible.

Finally, the threat of sanctions

based on such a framework would likely discourage legitimate

creditors from lending to poor countries, further reducing

these countries' access to financial markets.

Finally, H.R. 2634 contains several provisions raising

constitutional concerns by purporting to limit the

President's ability to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.

Madam Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, yesterday was Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties. This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week on April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a comprehensive bill offered by my friend from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. In other words, instead of increasing taxes, we would like to make these tax cuts permanent for economic growth and development in this country, which will encourage investment and thereby grow jobs in this country.

We have heard today several speakers from the Democrat majority question what is wrong with America today, and even blaming President Bush for the economic woes that exist. But today the Republican Party is saying if we want to do the things that President Bush wants, and I think that the American people want, let's make tax cuts permanent to ensure that we have job growth and development of companies and employers in America.

It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains, because that is how you grow jobs. The reverse is happening, which America understands right now, and that is the new Democratic majority wants to increase taxes, which causes the economy not to stimulate, but to contract, which is exactly what is happening now, which is exactly what we understand the new policies of the Democratic majority have been about for 17 months.

At some point, this Democratic majority is going to have to take responsibility for the things that happen under their watch, instead of just blaming President Bush. President Bush says let's make these tax cuts permanent. That is what has worked up to now, and we need to do it today.

We will also amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent a tax deduction for State and local sales tax. That needs to be done. We have done that each of the last 5 years. Also the tax deductions for tuition. Let me repeat that; the tax deduction for tuition. Here we are on the floor trying to do something for students, to get student loans, but yet we will not have a deduction for tuition and related expenses.

The increased expensing allowed for small businesses. Small business is the engine of our economy. That is why Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent, so that we make sure that we allow small businesses to grow, not contract.

And the tax credit for increasing research and development. Research and development is how we are going to cure the ills and the problems of the world that we see today.

Instead, the new Democratic majority, now for 17 months, wants to increase taxes. They want to take away the deductions for tuition; they want to increase taxes on small business; they want to make investment very difficult in this country, doubling, if you listen to some of the candidates that are on the trail, doubling the capital gains rate. And certainly they won't be for increasing research and development. They want to tax that.

Finally, this opportunity today would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress during this week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day than to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. That is what we should be about, is good policy that encourages the opportunity to grow our economy and have new jobs.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief, so that we can grow our economy for Americans at the same time that we provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. What a wonderful opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1107.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1107 provides for consideration of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order four amendments in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, and the underlying rule. Under this act, the Congress will ensure that low-interest student loans remain available for college students and their families even in the face of the credit crunch. In doing so, the Congress will build on the new commitment to college and university students and their hardworking families that this new Democratic majority has provided.

See, our action today comes on the heels of the historic College Cost Reduction and Access Act that was signed into law a few months ago that saves college students an average of $4,400 on student loan interest. We increased the Pell Grant, and we now will forgive student loans for students that commit to a 10-year career in public service.

This single largest investment in college financial assistance since the GI Bill in 1944 comes at no new cost to taxpayers. The new Congress promised to make college more affordable for all Americans, and we have delivered on that promise.

Our next step today is to ensure that families can continue to access the loans they need to pay for college. See, in today's economy, a college education is as important as a high school diploma was a generation ago. And with college costs growing by nearly 40 percent over the last 5 years, students are graduating from college with more debt than ever before. It is estimated that 200,000 students do not go to college every year because they simply cannot afford the costs. Well, our efforts today will restore the American dream for those families.

We know that many families across this great country are facing severe financial strains. The economic downturn, the cost of housing, the cost of health care, gas prices have hit our families especially hard. Middle class families are especially being squeezed in this unfortunate Bush economy.

In addition to these basic needs, the rising cost of a college education has left many families very concerned that a college education may not be within reach for their children. A recent press report noted that 70 percent of parents said that they are very concerned about how they're going to be able to afford the cost of a college education for their kids.

Families now are forced to pull from many different sources to pay for college and to simply make ends meet. They're drawing on their savings account, Federal loans, private loans, and the equity in their homes all at the same time to send their kids to college. And despite all of their hard work and the fact that they've set money aside, they're still unable to come up with the cost of tuition because these costs are rising. The costs of sending their child away to school or just down the street to the community college is simply out of reach for so many so they turn to the loans.

In 2007, families borrowed almost $60 billion in Federal student loans. Now, in this credit crunch, banks are tightening their loan requirements and raising rates. We want to make sure that families have access to the low-interest loans, that they remain available for these hardworking families so their kids can attend college.

Madam Speaker, this bill has a number of very significant improvements under our Federal college loan program. The best deal going in college loans these days is the Stafford loan. We are going to increase the annual loan limit for the Stafford loan by $2,000 for undergraduates and graduate students. These loans are the most affordable and available to students with the best interest rates.

Currently, there's a cap on the amount that a student can receive, so our legislation today will raise that cap. It increases the total loan limit, as well, over the course of a student's college education from $31,000 for dependent undergraduates to $57,500 for independent graduate students.

The other significant loan available to families these days is the Parent PLUS loan. The Parent PLUS loan, the primary benefit for the PLUS loan for parents is that they can borrow Federally guaranteed low- interest loans, not tied to the students, but that's a loan for the parents. The parents can borrow the total cost of undergraduate education including tuition, room and board, supplies, lab expenses, and travel, and other aids. It's a non-need-based loan. Well, we're going to give parents a little more flexibility under our actions today to pay off their PLUS loans.

Currently, those loans become due 60 days after the bill is sent to them. We're going to give them a little extra time and allow the student to complete their college education before that loan becomes due. We're going to help struggling homeowners pay for college because right now, it is not clear under the law that parents that are struggling with pending foreclosure or difficulty in paying their housing costs can also access the great PLUS loans to help their kids get through college. So we're going to allow for that today.

We're also going to give the Department of Education additional tools so that these, the cost of college and the access to student loans, remain available for America's hardworking families.

I would like to thank Chairman George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee here in the House for his leadership on making sure that families continue to have access for student loans but for also being a champion for American families, colleges, and our entire educational system which is in better hands now that the Democrats are in charge here in the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, today the Congress will build on the new commitment to college and university students and their hardworking families that this new Democratic majority in the Congress has provided. Our efforts to ensure continued access to low-cost student loans for families comes on the heels of the historic College Cost Reduction and Access Act that was signed into law a few months ago that will save college students an average of $4,400 on student loan interest, will increase the Pell Grant, and will forgive loans for those who provide 10 years of public service to their community.

This is the single largest investment in college financial assistance since the

GI Bill in 1944 and comes at no new cost to taxpayers. The new Congress promised to make college more affordable for all Americans, and we have delivered on that promise.

Our next step today is to ensure that families can continue to access the loans they need to pay for college. And let me provide you with one example from my hometown in Tampa, Florida: a student at the University of South Florida, a large public university of over 40,000 students. This student is a communications major and is one semester away from graduation. But she has reached her loan limit. She can't access that Stafford Loan that provides the lowest interest rate available out there. She is the first in her family to ever attend college. She only lacks 11 credit hours to graduate, and she plans to graduate this summer, but she has been forced to apply for a higher interest rate, private loan, to cover the expenses of her summer tuition. Well, this legislation is ready-made for her and thousands of other students across America and their families. It gives them that extra-added flexibility to be able to put the money to good use and graduate on time rather than end up paying higher loans and interest rates.

You see, Madam Speaker, we're not just Members of Congress. We are also parents ourselves. And we are also concerned about the increasing cost of college, especially given the fact that college costs have been increasing more rapidly than available grant and financial aid, Federal loans, and families' ability to pay. Well, our efforts today will restore the American Dream for many families. And we know and appreciate that many families are facing extreme financial strains. The economic downturn, the cost of housing, the cost of health care, gas prices have hit our families hard. Families are really being squeezed in this unfortunate Bush economy.

But there is a reason to hope because we will continue to fight for a new direction for our country, a direction that values access to education, values better jobs, and values an opportunity for all Americans.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. McKeon. Madam Speaker, this rule will allow consideration of a bill that takes a critical first step in addressing disturbances in the student loan financial markets brought on by broader market turmoil.

We've all read the headlines and spoken with our constituents about this difficult economy. Our economic confidence has been shaken, and people are nervous. But what may be overlooked is that students and families thinking about how to pay for college are in a particular bind.

It's hard enough to pay for college when tuition regularly rises at two or three times the rate of inflation and textbooks can run close to $1,000 each year. Add to that the idea that lenders are scaling back on student loans, and it's easy to see why Americans are nervous about paying for college.

Like most challenges to our economy, there's no easy answer to the difficulties in our student loan programs. We will need a combination of actions--maybe some legislatively, others through regulation--that will increase liquidity and restore confidence among investors and consumers.

This bill is a first step, and one that deserves bipartisan support. It signals our commitment to a strong Federal Family Education Loan program, and should help ease the minds of students and families. And it does these things without a cost to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the bill is not being brought up under an open rule. H.R. 5715 was developed on a bipartisan basis, and is stronger because of it. The idea that members will not be permitted to collaborate on this effort to protect college students and their families is disappointing, if not surprising given the track record of the 110th Congress.

I will oppose this rule because it limits the full participation of all members. But I will strongly support the underlying measure, H.R. 5715, when it is brought to the floor and I urge all my colleagues to join me in telling students and families that we are committed to college access.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1103 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1103.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In 1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28 countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the countries' debt by an average of two-thirds.

The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent of their

gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in 2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent, and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people in Niger to 69 percent.

The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program.

These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam.

But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts; and, four, uphold human rights standards.

In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were spent.

These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day, become eligible for debt forgiveness.

Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required reforms.

This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts, incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a boost.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective. However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to the taxpayers.

Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant reductions in global poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am the last speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition on that committee between the members on the majority and the members on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries in this world.

This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is bipartisan. It should be done.

I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can do immediately in the legislation that is before us.

The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7 trillion.

The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman.

So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on poverty.

Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the world safer and more stable.

This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes''

vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1102 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1102 provides for consideration of H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the bill controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, today, April 15, is Tax Day, which has long been a source of stress and anxiety for many working families. However, today we will bring good news. We will consider legislation that will alleviate many of the tax-related difficulties Americans face today and throughout the year. This legislation will streamline the tax filing process for individuals and businesses as well as improve IRS customer service and strengthen privacy protections.

The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act is also fully paid for by ensuring funds from tax-advantaged health savings accounts will be used for qualified health care expenses, and by temporarily delaying a withholding requirement on government payments to contractors.

It also contains provisions to strengthen the integrity of the Tax Code, making it simpler and fairer for all Americans. It eliminates incentives for U.S. companies to outsource work by ensuring they cannot escape paying employment taxes on government workers.

In addition, this legislation will also prevent thousands of elderly and disabled individuals from owing employment taxes for in-home care workers provided through State and local government programs.

This legislation also improves IRS service and outreach to low-income taxpayers in several ways. First, it allows IRS employees to refer taxpayers requiring assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics. It also requires that the IRS notify taxpayers of their potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been the largest need-based, anti-poverty program in the United States, lifting millions of Americans out of poverty every single year.

GAO estimates that in 2004, Americans failed to claim $8 billion in earned income tax credits, hundreds of millions of dollars in my home State of Ohio alone. These credits have the potential to help strengthen families and their financial security while also benefiting our communities at large by stimulating local economic development and job growth. And in order to ensure that eligible families can continue to take advantage of the earned income tax credit, this legislation authorizes an annual $10 million grant to Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, or VITA, programs. VITA provides free assistance to qualified low-income taxpayers, thanks to these grants as well as the assistance of dedicated volunteers across the country.

The availability of these valuable services makes it unnecessary for working families to turn to high-cost tax preparers and unscrupulous organizations engaging in predatory practices like offering what is called ``Refund Anticipation Loans.''

The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act also includes several

provisions to strengthen privacy protections and government accountability. Importantly, it prohibits the IRS from providing individual taxpayer information to private entities employing predatory loan tactics. And it requires the IRS to notify taxpayers of suspected identity theft and fraud. It also takes the important step of repealing the authority of the IRS to contract with private debt collection agencies.

Mr. Speaker, there is no duty more central to the functioning of the Federal Government than the collection of its revenue. But under the Bush Administration, this inherently governmental responsibility has been farmed out to private collectors who keep up to 25 percent of the tax revenues they collect. The program has caused confusion and aggravation for many taxpayers because these private debt collectors frequently demand sensitive personal information without revealing the nature of their phone calls, as was documented in a Ways and Means Committee hearing last year.

In addition, the operations of private contractors are not held to the same standard of transparency as required of the Federal Government. There is the danger that sensitive personal information could be compromised through careless handling of these cases without accountability. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has reported over 1,500 complaints related to this program. And not only are there serious privacy and service issues, but the promised cost savings of the private debt collection program has simply not materialized. One needs to look no further than a headline on the front page of today's Washington Post that proclaims, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They Raise.''

Private debt collectors are also less efficient than the IRS. As the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service points out, the Department of the Treasury estimates that private collection agencies collect $4 for every dollar it invests in tax collection efforts, but every dollar invested in IRS collections yields five times that amount.

The downside of continuing to outsource the duties of the Internal Revenue Service clearly outweigh any benefits. It's just another disturbing example of a poor governmental function being outsourced to private contractors with subpar results and a lack of transparency and accountability. It is a waste of taxpayer resources, and it is about time that we eliminated the IRS's authority to outsource this government responsibility.

The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act improves government accountability and makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I'd just like to clarify for the record some of the things that have been presented.

The National Taxpayer Advocate, who is appointed by the Treasury Secretary, reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS Private Debt Collection initiative is an inefficient use of government dollars.'' The Chief of the National Taxpayer Advocate Service testified that the IRS employees bring in $20 for every dollar IRS spends, whereas private debt collectors bring in only $4.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Ellsworth).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I'll reserve my time until the gentleman has closed on his side and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008 is a strong pro-taxpayer bill that adopts legislative recommendations and tackles many of the most serious problems detailed in the National Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress.

In this weakening economy, America's working families will face many challenges in the months ahead and we in Congress need to do what we can to help. This legislation will streamline the tax filing process and ease the burden of tax law compliance, it will ensure that we are good stewards of taxpayer funds by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful programs that compromise the integrity of our governmental functions, and it makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer by eliminating unduly burdensome compliance requirements and providing commonsense solutions.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation, because it makes the needs of working Americans a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the rule which I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.