Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2008

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase the number of full-time personnel of the Consumer Product U.S. Safety Commission assigned to duty stations at U.S. ports of entry or to inspect overseas production facilities to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has the personnel necessary to adequately address the growing problem of import safety. This bill would more than triple the current number of commission staff assigned to U.S. ports of entry, by requiring that no less than 50 full-time import inspectors be in place at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Additionally, it would expressly authorize the CPSC to send such inspectors to examine the operations at overseas factories which manufacture consumer products destined for the U.S.

This legislation is critically necessary, given that an ever- increasing number of the consumer products now sold on our shelves are manufactured in countries with appalling safety and quality control standards, such as China. Sine the year 2000, foreign imports to the U.S. have increased 67 percent by value, with imports from China nearly tripling, growing from $100 billion in 2000 to $288 billion last year. Almost 20 percent of consumer products sold in the U.S. today were made in China. Particularly troubling is that Chinese manufacturers have cornered the U.S. market on toys, with over 80 percent of all toys sold in the U.S. coming from China. Since March 2007, over 8 million pieces of these Chinese-made toys have been recalled due to lead contamination alone.

Outrageously, the number of CPSC personnel dedicated to monitoring import compliance with U.S. health and safety requirements has been slashed along with other Commission resources during the very period in which trade liberalization has allowed foreign producers greater access to our markets. With over 60 percent of CPSC staff having been cut over the past 27 years--from almost 1,000 employees in 1980 to a record low of 420 employees in 2007--there remain only 15 full-time Commission personnel assigned to inspect imports at U.S. ports. According to a September 2, 2007, New York Times article, this handful of import inspectors ``are hard pressed to find dangerous cargo before it enters the country; instead, they rely on other Federal agents, who mostly act as trademark enforcers.'' Similarly unacceptable is the fact that the CPSC lacks the staff to send a single inspector to the foreign factories making the goods that we put on our kitchen counters and in the hands of our children.

These facts unquestionably reveal, as a Consumers Union official told the Senate Committee on Finance earlier this month, that the CPSC has not kept up with the globalization of the marketplace. That is why I have proposed this bill, which would rapidly shore-up the commission's import inspection staff, who are so critical to protecting us from dangerous foreign products. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense solution to an urgent problem.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act of 2007. I truly appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill.

Small businesses have propelled our Nation's economic growth, producing more than 50 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, GDP, and creating between 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs annually. The Small Business Administration's loan guarantee programs are a vital source of financing for many of these small start-up firms, entrepreneurs seeking working capital, and small businesses that must purchase larger office space or secure factory equipment so they can continue to expand.

At the same time, the SBA's 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not endure if careless oversight, and a lack of standards, allow scandal to tarnish the good names of these programs. The 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not survive if we cannot prove to taxpayers that the money spent to guarantee small business loans actually produces economic vitality, opportunity, and new jobs, for our Nation. Make no mistake, the only way to protect these integral programs and demonstrate their effectiveness and economic growth capacity is through the use of concrete measurements.

In order for the SBA's lending portfolios to grow and allow more small firms to secure the capital they require, the SBA must quantify both quality and performance by establishing the specific criteria it will examine and then assess changes in these factors over time. Additionally, these benchmarks must be codified and transparent so that lenders and small businesses understand what is being measured.

The problem is this: although the SBA evaluates portfolio quality, and uses these assessments to conduct lender oversight, the SBA has failed to provide participating lenders with some of the criteria or formulas the Agency uses to determine if their portfolios are sound or substandard. This lack of transparency not only hinders the SBA's lender oversight capabilities, it causes participating 7(a) and 504 lenders to be critical of the SBA's ability to accurately assess portfolio quality. Regrettably, the SBA's current oversight and portfolio quality assessment methods have not prevented recent high- profile scandals from occurring.

Currently, the SBA has roughly $60 billion in outstanding loans issued to small businesses. Yet incredulously it does not track these businesses' economic performance. While the SBA's total loan volume has increased substantially over the last 10 years, the agency has no way to show how these loans benefitted the U.S. economy. Ultimately, the SBA is unaware of how many jobs these loans have created, whether company net-sales or revenues have increased after securing capital, or how many of these companies prepay, default, or go out of business. Though the purpose of these loans is to spur economic growth, the SBA does not assess the actual economic outcomes these loans help make possible. Without these measurements, how can the SBA attest to the incredible economic lift and vitality these loans help generate?

Two recent Government Accountability Office reports, one from July of this year and one from June of 2004, recommended that the SBA improve its economic performance and portfolio quality measurements. Our bill would implement the GAO's recommendations and improve the performance measures for 7(a) and 504 loans. Among other things, the bill would require the SBA to: create standards for lenders' portfolio quality; increase the transparency of the SBA's lender oversight evaluation measures; report on borrowers' economic performance; and create a 7(a) and 504 portfolio default rate that can be compared directly to commercial lenders' default rates.

We have an obligation not only to maintain, but to strengthen and improve the SBA's key loan programs that I have heard time and again are a critical lifeline to the job generators we call small businesses. The remedies that Senator Kerry and I are proposing today are necessary for the SBA's lending programs to expand, and reach all of the small businesses that must have access to capital.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would require the Federal Communications Commission to fulfill its obligation of conducting an economic study on the impact low-power FM stations have on full-power commercial stations. The reason it is imperative the FCC perform this study is because we don't have a comprehensive understanding as to the effect that low-power FM stations have on their full-power counterparts.

When Congress imposed the three-adjacent-channel restriction on low- power licensees in 2001, we tasked the FCC with conducting two studies because we were concerned about the interference LPFM stations could cause with being too close in frequency to full-power commercial stations. The two studies were to determine the impact that the presence of a low-power channel would have with respect to interference with a nearby full-power station and the economic impact the presence of low power stations would bring to the commercial licensees. However, the FCC completed only one study--the interference analysis.

My legislation calls for the FCC to complete an economic study on the impact LPFM stations have on full-power commercial radio stations within 18 months and report its findings to Congress.

Volunteer, non-profit LPFM stations have found a niche but they also provide competition to full-power stations without having to incur the same costs as those commercial stations, particularly with the absence of licensing fees and employees' salaries. Most of us have raised serious concerns about the continued media consolidation that is occurring and negatively affecting localism and diversity.

Part of the reason for this consolidation is because local, independently owned stations are seeing lower profit margins, which are making it more and more difficult to continue broadcasting. Due to shrinking profit, these stations either go out of business or are sold out to larger, nationwide companies. The buy-out of local stations by out-of-town firms does more to harm diverse and locally oriented broadcasting than anything else. So we must actively investigate this trend and determine what is contributing to the diminishing returns of independently owned stations.

Some may question why perform this study since Mitre Corporation, the company that performed the initial interference study, recommended the FCC should not undertake the additional expense of a formal listener test program or a Phase II economic analysis. The reason is because the Phase II economic analysis was only on the potential radio interference impact of LPFM on incumbent full-power stations and did not take into account other economic impacts that were outside the scope of that effort. The Government must ensure that by opening up low-power FM broadcast opportunities we are not causing any undue harm to the full- power radio stations, which we have obligations to as the issuer of their licenses.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the Federal Communications Commission's right to deny a low-power FM license if the applicant has run afoul of basic, longstanding Federal restrictions on the transmission of radio waves, such as if the applicant has been previously fined for running an unlicensed ``pirate'' radio station.

Before the issuance of low-power licenses, numerous individuals and entities operated low-power FM stations without a broadcast license. These ``pirate'' stations many times broadcasted in open defiance of the Commission's initial ban on LPFM broadcasts. From January 1998 to February 2000, the Commission shut down, on average, more than a dozen unlicensed radio stations each month. On several separate occasions, these unlicensed radio stations actually disrupted air traffic control communications.

Congress, through the enactment of the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000, directed the FCC to modify its low-power FM rules to ``prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934'' so the Commission could curtail these pirate stations and disruption occurrence.

My concern is by completely repealing section 632, which pending legislation proposes, it hinders the ability of the FCC to prohibit applicants from receiving low-power FM licenses. The Commission is responsible for making sure broadcasters follow the basic rules and regulations that are inherently essential to having a broadcast service that serves public interest since broadcasters are utilizing public spectrum. This legislation retains a targeted response to the problem of pirate broadcasting.

The commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ``public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served.'' Completely repealing Section 632 could hinder the FCC from upholding this responsibility with respect to low-power FM broadcasters. For this

reason, we must act to preserve the FCC's authority to be able to prohibit low-power FM licenses to applicants that have violated basic tenets of broadcast policy--it is only logical that we do this to ensure businesses that use the public spectrum, in any capacity, adhered to laws government has put in place to serve and protect the public interest.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the prosperity and competitiveness of an element of agriculture that is often overlooked: American aquaculture. Some experts estimate that to meet the demand for healthy, fresh aquacultural products, global production will have to double in the next 40 years. Yet in spite of this skyrocketing demand, America is at risk of being left behind by other nations who have thus far exhibited greater foresight than we have; putting into place a comprehensive infrastructure for sustainable seafood. While it is true that American aquaculture sales exceeded an impressive one billion dollars in 2005, this was a pittance when compared to the $70 billion market worldwide. In fact, in 2006 the U.S. had a trade deficit in seafood production of $9.1 billion. With demand rising so dramatically globally and, in particular, here at home, we cannot afford to fall behind any further.

That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce the National Aquatic Animal Health Act. This legislation will begin the process of creating a national infrastructure that will attract investment, protect the valuable stocks of our aquaculture farmers from disease, and create a unique, flexible partnership between the Federal Government, State agencies, and industry groups. Dedicated to proactively monitoring seafood stocks for disease, this program will employ the resources and vast field experience of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, coupled with experts on disease at various State agriculture and marine agencies and industry professionals to certify the health of all participating aquaculture species.

Modeled after similar animal monitoring programs already in place at APHIS, this program will provide a nationwide set of standards, the kind of uniformity that is currently absent in the aquaculture community. Instead, a myriad of jurisdictional conflicts and competing regulations among various states creates uncertainty and erects impediments to interstate commerce. But this bill is not a set of onerous regulations imposed upon the private sector by a federal agency; under the legislation, states are required to opt-in to the program. They must choose to utilize the assets available in this legislation to assist in preserving that state's particular aquaculture products.

My home State of Maine has tremendously benefited from aquaculture. There are nearly three dozen hatcheries in the State, handling both finfish and shellfish. Our 3,500 miles of coastline has served as an ideal incubator for the expansion of the aquaculture industry. The total economic activity generated from the industry State-wide was over $130 million last year, providing jobs for over 1,000 hard-working Mainers. This sort of productivity was not always the case. In 2001, nearly all the salmon stocks in Maine had to be eliminated due to an outbreak of a crippling, infectious disease known as ISA. It took the industry years to recover. Now, the Great Lakes face the threat of the virulent pathogen known as VHS. It is my hope that with swift passage of this legislation, we will no longer have to fear this kind of widespread disease and the subsequent containment costs that could cause inestimable damage to an industry that is struggling to catch up to its global competitors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward on debating Federal farm policy.

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce, with Chairman Kerry, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007. This critical legislation is a product of consensus-building and compromise over the past few years and truly reflects the bipartisan nature of our Committee. Thank you, Chairman Kerry, for working to make this a truly bipartisan bill.

This legislation addresses the numerous barriers facing small businesses in securing their fair share of Federal contracting dollars. Currently, small businesses are eligible for $340 billion in Federal contracting dollars, yet receive only $77 billion. Regrettably, the Federal Government consistently fails to satisfy its 23 percent small business goal resulting in small businesses losing billions of dollars in contracting opportunities.

I am dismayed by the myriad ways that Government agencies have time and again egregiously failed to achieve

most of their small business statutory ``goaling'' requirements. For example, in fiscal year 2006, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program met only 2.1 percent of its three percent goal, while our Nation's service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses received a Government-wide, paltry total of only 0.9 percent of its three percent small business goal. This longstanding area of concern is coupled with a litany of deficiencies that include ``contract bundling,'' sub-contracting misrepresentations, inaccurate small business size determinations, flawed reporting data, and under- utilization of key small business contracting programs.

As the Chairman is well aware, these problems are not new, and our Committee has held countless hearings on various contracting concerns throughout the years. Business opportunities through Federal contracts provide vital economic benefits for small businesses, which is why last year, my Small Business Administration Reauthorization Bill, which passed our Committee unanimously, contained a robust package of small business contracting initiatives.

Our legislation builds on the contracting provisions of that bill, by improving all of the small business contracting programs--including the HUBZone, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business programs. It equips the SBA with additional tools to meet the demands of an ever-changing 21st century contracting environment.

This bipartisan measure also includes several other priorities that I have long championed--most notably, enhancing the HUBZone program. In my home state of Maine, only 118 of 41,026 small businesses are qualified HUBZone businesses. HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs for our Nation's declining manufacturing and industrial sectors--clearly, this program should be better utilized.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bipartisan small business contracting legislation to ensure that all small business ``goals'' are not only met--but exceeded.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Today is Tax Day, Madam Speaker, and all across the country, millions of Americans will wait patiently, or not so patiently, in line at the local post office, making sure that their taxes are postmarked by the midnight deadline.

Having recently struggled through the process of filling out my own tax forms, I share the frustrations of millions of American taxpayers, not just with the amount of taxes that we have to pay, but with the dizzying maze of forms, worksheets and calculations required by the IRS as well.

But instead of working together in a bipartisan way to simplify the process and enhance taxpayers rights, the majority has chosen to bring forward a partisan, political bill that has already drawn a veto threat from the administration, and is almost certainly ``dead on arrival'' in the other body.

To be sure, this legislation does contain a number of positive, pro- taxpayer provisions, most of which have already passed the House last year in an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis as part of H.R. 1677. Unfortunately for this House, and for taxpayers across the country, the majority has now abandoned that commonsense bipartisan approach that we brought to last year's bill.

Instead the majority has included a pair of highly controversial proposals that kill any hope of bipartisan cooperation, one imposing a new substantiation requirements on withdrawals from health savings accounts, and another cutting off the ability of carefully selected private businesses to assist the IRS in collecting delinquent tax debt.

Over the course of today's debate, we'll hear much more about the concerns that many Members have about the HSA provision, a provision that was not subject to a single hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, and was inserted into the bill just prior to mark-up without any real understanding of the potential consequences.

So let me take a moment to focus on the other provision of concern, the proposal to repeal the IRS's authority to work with private collection agencies to ensure that acknowledged tax debt is actually paid.

For some Members of this body on both sides of the debate, this particular issue is simple and is simply about policy. For them, it's an abstract question about whether these private collection agencies, so called PCAs, should be able to play a limited supplementary role in ensuring that undisputed tax debts are, in fact, paid.

As we debate this particular issue yet again this afternoon, we'll hear again persuasive evidence making clear just how successful the PCA program has already been in narrowing the tax gap, and while carefully protecting taxpayers rights. And we will also hear how much additional promise this program holds for the future if it's allowed to continue.

But for me and the area I represent, Western New York, the issue is much more than an abstract policy debate. It's also about jobs. As the Member of Congress who represents rural Wyoming County in Western New York, I'm actually more familiar than most Members with the work that PCAs do. After all, the largest single private employer in Wyoming County, Pioneer Credit Recovery, is one of the only two companies nationwide that the IRS has selected to help get this important program underway.

Madam Speaker, Pioneer Credit is a highly respected local business that has created more than 1,400 high-paying jobs for families living in either my district or neighboring districts around Buffalo and Rochester. And as my fellow Members of Western New York's Congressional Delegation know, these jobs have been created in a region that has faced serious economic challenges.

This IRS contract has allowed Pioneer Credit to turn an empty warehouse in Perry, New York into a thriving job center for newly hired employees. In short, it's been a great economic success story in part of Western New York that has desperately needed it.

As someone who fought to give the IRS the authority to partner with these private companies in the first place, I am deeply troubled that the new majority is once again threatening to deauthorize this important program just as it's getting underway.

If this program is allowed to continue, Pioneer Credit will have the opportunity to compete for future IRS contracts that could create many additional jobs in the area of Western New York that I represent. Killing this program, on the other hand, would cost my constituents real jobs at a time when Congress should be working to expand employment opportunities, particularly in hard-hit areas that are struggling economically.

I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that under the Democrats convoluted PAYGO rules, proposals that reduce anticipated Federal revenues must be offset by other provisions that raise revenue. As a result, today's

proposal to eliminate the PCA program, a program that is currently expected to bring in more than a half billion dollars to the Federal Treasury, over the next decade, also requires them to raise Federal revenue or taxes by the same amount somewhere else. That's right. The majority is raising taxes by a half a billion dollars today in order to eliminate the very program that's helping us to collect undisputed tax debts, more effectively. Only in Washington, Madam Speaker, only in Washington.

This bill is wrong on policy, it's wrong on job creation and it's on the way to mark April 15 for America's hard-working taxpayers.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague on the Ways and Mean Committee from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), an expert on HSAs and other matters for consideration today.

Madam Speaker, I've been listening to some of my colleagues, and I'm sure we'll have more on the Democratic side of the aisle that have been such proponents of doing away with the collection. I just want to remind some of them of a couple of things that we should look at.

First, this is money that the IRS will not go after. It is part of the goal that Congress said we will pursue to get this money, and it was going to show a $1 billion over 10-year revenue.

Now, we have seen the start-up of PCAs, one in Iowa and one in New York, after a very clear scrutiny by the IRS and by strong oversight of the Congress. And there are start-up costs of the $50 million, as we're beginning to see the program come under way, to pursue money that the IRS either hasn't collected, can't collect, will not collect as the PCAs are pursuing it.

And I have listened to a lot of people describe what they think they understand of a PCA, but they have never really been in tune with it. It kind of reminds me of somebody debating ATM legislation and never actually used an ATM.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Health Committee of Ways and Means from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Well, I just want to make sure at least the taxpayers from the countryside I come from realize that H.R. 5719, which we're considering, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, really sounds good. It sounds real good on Tax Day, as I open my remarks by saying that taxpayers are in line now or will be until midnight tonight to have a postmarked April 15 date. But we know that this legislation will face a steep consideration of some saying ``dead on arrival'' in the other body. We've seen the administration have its advisers threaten veto. And yet, while there were so many things that we agreed upon in the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans and Democrats, we have a bill that brings controversy, that brings another one-House bill. It gets tough, as we move towards November of an election year, to explain that we didn't get much done, but boy did we have a lot of action on one-House bills.

I want to just share for the record here on this body what I did in the Ways and Means hearing. Because I think there's two important documents that my colleagues, as this debate goes today, and some of the consideration of what will be difficult on seeing PCAs, as the legislation may come to pass from this body, we will see difficult sledding in the other body, as well as the administration, are two reports.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration wrote one on March 26, only weeks ago, that had inadequate security controls over routers and switches that jeopardize sensitive taxpayer information. It was done by the Inspector General. And I want to just report, because we had it confirmed by representatives of the administration under our examination that this, in fact, has occurred and it's in the report which was submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. And it says, ``Impact to the Taxpayer: Because the IRS sends sensitive taxpayer and administrative information across its networks, routers on the networks must have sufficient security controls to deter and detect unauthorized use. Access controls for IRS routers were not adequate, and reviews to monitor security configuration changes were not conducted to identify inappropriate use. A disgruntled employee, contractor or a hacker could reconfigure routers and switches to disrupt computer operations and steal taxpayer information in a number of ways, including diverting information to unauthorized systems.''

Madam Speaker, that same very day, on March 26, the same Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a second report called, ``The Private Collection Agencies Adequately Protected Taxpayer Data.'' And this information also was confirmed under examination as we made inquiries to the administration that confirmed that the reports exist, and they were well aware of these findings as well. And on page 2 of the Inspector General's report it said, ``We reviewed the computer security controls over taxpayer data provided to the two current PCAs,'' or private collection agencies for those maybe not following the debate, ``and determined that the controls were adequate. In particular, files were securely transmitted from the IRS to the contractors and adequately secured on the contractor systems. In addition work stations used by contractor collection personnel were adequately controlled to prevent unauthorized copying of taxpayer information to removable media or transfer via e-mail. The contractors also maintained adequate audit trails and performed periodic reviews, including reviews to identify unauthorized access to taxpayer data.''

Now, the response from the IRS, contained also on page two of the Treasury Inspector General said, ``The key IRS management officials reviewed the report prior to issuance and agreed to the results of the review.''

We know that in the operation of PCAs, we are going to see the collection pursuit of $500 million over that over the next 10 years. And we know that if this legislation prevails, there is going to be a tax increase of $500 million to pay for this under the majority's PAYGO rules. And so as we continue the debate, make it clearly understood that the pursuit of these PCAs was on proceeds that were not collected, could not be collected, needed to be collected in order to put into the Treasury this money owed by taxpayers to the government. And that as

we look at this legislation, what has brought the controversy to uncontroversial legislation, legislation that both parties could agree to, was the adding of HSA changes and dealing with the PCAs. My colleagues need to consider the type of consequences we're seeing in what will be a misguided change on PCA legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have listened very carefully to my friend and colleague from New York as he sees his views.

I thought maybe I might for the record just outline that I have a copy of a letter that numerous groups sent in opposition to this legislation, primarily due to HSAs, to both Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery. And it leads off with the NFIB and goes down to the National Taxpayers Union, and it has the U.S. Chamber and it has the Retail Industry

Leaders Association, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and so many others. And I will make it available in case some of my colleagues haven't seen it.

This isn't something Republicans on this side of the aisle just kind of dreamed up that there are problems that make this legislation controversial with HSA legislation or with the PCAs. It's well documented by the experts that are using the program.

I also think, rather than some of my colleagues interpreting what the administration may have for support or rejection of the legislation, maybe I should read into the Record exactly what the Statement of Administration Policy is on H.R. 5719 so that we all know what the administration's concerns are.

And for the record: ``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. 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 advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

``Also, the administration strongly opposes provisions of the bill that would repeal the current statutory authorization for the Internal Revenue Service 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 10 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 advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.''

That is a Statement of Administration Policy on the record relative to this.

I now would yield to my colleague from New York for a question.

Well, I will ask you to look that up, and at a later time I will yield and you can point it out in my record.

One more time.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I just think it's important we look at this. First, I heard the debate coming from the majority, from the gentleman, that outlined his interpretation of why the administration was opposed to the bill. I listened carefully. I made a decision to read into the Record exactly what the administration's policy position was on this so that it was no longer an interpretation from a Member of Congress but exactly in written word what the administration said relative to this bill.

And I think while we're looking at other aspects of this legislation, we do know the following: That the administration is going to veto this legislation, that we also know it has difficult sledding in the other body. And it has in the past because there's a track record, that it appears just with PCA alone, let alone some of the concerns that have been put forth in the letter that I read from earlier on HSAs, that we now have another one-House bill being trumped up and laid out on Tax Day.

And I will say the majority is superb in showmanship. We seem to be able to move legislation to the floor on significant days. Today is tax legislation on Tax Day, April 15.

But I also know that the public is not going to be confused by the fact that while we trump up an extravaganza of legislation on special days, today tax legislation on April 15, that the voters are going to take a real hard look at what really got done, what has gotten through, what was made better for America. And, again, we have another one-House bill that just, sadly, had too much partisanship in it and fell away.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think I heard my colleague when he said that Democrats are in the majority in this body, Democrats are in the majority in the other body, but it's the Republicans' fault that this legislation isn't going to happen.

Now, I have explained a lot of tough, challenging things to my constituents, but I don't think they're going to buy that. It's just another one-House bill that is going to the other body and going to see death. It isn't going to see the light of day.

Now, moving to my colleague from New York who asked me the question. I didn't think I could provide the answer to his question quite as soon as I could, and saving him looking it up, because I assume as he went off the floor, he might be looking up this. I want to go back again to the statement of administration policy. The bill includes provisions that would impose new administrative burdens on the trustees of health savings accounts. That is what the administration said in their veto threat.

Now on the bill as reported out of committee by the majority, page 22, line 7, 8 and 9 to my colleagues, says the trustee of the health savings account shall make a report regarding such account to the Secretary and account beneficiary setting forth. So I want everyone to know, including my colleague who asked the question, it is clear in your bill that you set forth that the HSA trustees would have new administrative burdens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire on the amount of time left, please.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is. I would proceed and then have you close if you are ready.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia who has done a magnificent job of managing his time, and I've enjoyed working with him.

Madam Speaker, today represents yet another missed opportunity on the floor of this House. We could have approached the issues of taxpayer rights and tax simplification in a bipartisan way just as we did last year. But with the election season now in full swing, the majority seems more interested in staging political theater than in actually getting something done for hardworking, middle-class taxpayers. This House and this country deserve more, especially on April 15, Tax Day. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007, designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace.

As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. The legislation that we are introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process.

It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving legislation forward in a bipartisan manner, the members of my Committee understand we represent the interests of all of our Nation's small businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of Federal procurement and ensuring that our Nation's small businesses receive their fair share of procurement opportunities. I am pleased to once again be introducing bipartisan legislation with the Committee's ranking member, Senator Olympia Snowe. Regardless of who has chaired the Committee during our tenure together, we have both worked hard to improve small business Federal procurement opportunities.

The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to expand opportunities for small businesses to contract with the Federal government. And the reality is that small businesses need all the help they can get with respect to accessing the Federal marketplace. In fiscal year 2006 according to Eagle Eye Publishing, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by 3 percent. That 3 percent represents more than $12 billion in lost contracting dollars for small businesses. Service-disabled veterans fared the worst when it came to Federal contracting with only 0.87 percent of Federal dollars going to their firms. Women-owned firms only took in 2.57 percent of Federal dollars while they make up more than 30 percent of all privately held firms. Minority-owned firms continue to face barriers to Federal contracting. The SDB and 8(a) program only accounted for 6.75 percent of Federal contracting. These numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is so important. If small business is the engine that drives our economy when it comes to Federal procurement that engine needs an overhaul. Our bill looks to make that overhaul as we look at making improvements in five key areas.

The first area we attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contracting bundling may have started out as a good idea it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with a decimation of contracting professionals within the Government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for Federal contracts. In our hearing on July 18, 2007, on contracting, we heard testimony about the damage to opportunities for small businesses because of the lack of oversight and contract bundling.

Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all Federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration.

The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors.

The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee heard in the July 18 hearing and in a May 22, 2007, hearing on minority business about the challenges that many small business subcontractors face when dealing with

prime contractors. Witnesses related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never hear from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about lack of timely payments after they have completed work.

This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts; authorizes agency pilot programs that will grant contractual incentives to prime contractors who exceed their small business goals; and requires prime contractors who fail to comply with subcontracting plans to fund mentor-protege assistance programs for small businesses.

The third area that our legislation attempts to address is the updating of the socioeconomic programs administered by the SBA. In our first hearing of the year on January 31, 2007, we heard veterans with service connected disabilities speak about the difficulty that they are having accessing the Federal marketplace. It is clear that the Government is not doing enough. In fiscal year 2006, service-disabled veteran-owned businesses only got 0.87 percent of all Federal procurement--well short of the 3 percent statutory goal.

Our bill will assist service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in obtaining Government contract and subcontract opportunities by expanding the authority for sole-source awards to SDV firms. In addition, the bill will allow: the surviving spouse of a service- disabled veteran to retain the business's SDV designation for up to 10 years following the veteran's death; the SBA to accept SDV firm certifications from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the establishment of an SDV mentor-protege program by the SBA. Our veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we owe it to them to give them every opportunity at fulfilling the dream of entrepreneurship.

We heard from women business owners in our September 20, 2007, hearing, on women's entrepreneurship that the time has come to implement the women's procurement program. The administration has continually postponed implementing a women's procurement program that became law 7 years ago. This bill tells SBA to get it done within 90 days.

Another program sorely needing our attention is the 8(a) program. This program was created to assist socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, but, as we heard during the May 22, 2007, hearing, the financial threshold for inclusion in the program is out-dated and too restrictive. The net-worth thresholds have not been updated since 1989. This bill allows for an inflationary adjustment to be made to the threshold and it excludes qualified retirement accounts from consideration while calculating the threshold so that businesses that belong in this program won't be shut out.

This bill also makes a number of changes to the HUBZone program. The bill would expand HUBZones to areas adjacent to military installations affected by BRAC. It will also make other changes that will expand the HUBZone program to subcontracting as well as creating a mentor protege program. I understand the stated goal of this program is to develop areas of poverty through government contracting. And while I agree that this is a laudable goal I also remember the controversy that surrounded the creation of this program in 1996. I am keenly aware that the HUBZone program was created to supplant race-conscious programs like 8(a) and the small disadvantaged business program. I fought hard to preserve those programs then and I will continue to preserve and strengthen those programs in the future. In the interests of moving this bill forward and improving all of the programs I have agreed to include these priorities for Ranking Member Snowe. I look forward to working with her to move the priorities that are important to all of the socio-economic groups in this legislation.

The fourth area that we intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts and by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; and requiring that agencies include advance plans on small business spending in their budgets and submit a report describing the impact of each bundled contract awarded by an agency. The bill also directs the SBA to annually report to Congress on small business participation in overseas Government contracts.

The last area that we tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. During our July hearing we looked at the list of the top 25 small businesses doing Federal contracting. On that list at least six clearly recognizable multi-billion dollar corporations were among the top 25 small businesses listed including SAIC at number two. I have been adamant that small business contracts must go to small businesses. Small businesses are losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of these size standard loopholes.

This bill attempts to address these issues by adding a new section, Sec. 38, to the Small Business Act that is designed to strengthen the Government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section establishes procedures for protests, through the SBA, of small business set-aside awards made to large businesses; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a government-wide policy on prosecutions of size and status fraud; and requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within 1 year.

In closing, I want to reiterate that this has been a truly bi- partisan effort and we look forward to working with the rest of the Senate as we move this legislation forward. It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity.

I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3548) to enhance citizen access to Government information and services by establishing plain language as the standard style for Government documents issued to the public, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last September, I introduced H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, and I rise today to talk about the responsibility of this government to communicate effectively with its constituents.

I know that lawyers are often blamed for the legalese that makes government documents so difficult to read and understand. Some might find it unusual that this ``Plain Language'' bill was introduced by someone who practiced law for 23 years before being elected to Congress. They might be surprised to learn that the use of clear,

concise language in communications has been a passion of mine since I began practicing law in 1983, when the Iowa Supreme Court adopted plain language requirements for jury instructions. Since that time, I have been writing and speaking about the importance of using plain language to improve both written and spoken communications.

I was proud to introduce the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, a bill that requires the Federal Government to write documents such as letters from the Social Security Administration or a notice from the Department of Veterans Affairs in simple, easy-to- understand language. This bill has been endorsed by a broad array of organizations, including the AARP, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Disabled American Veterans, the Small Business Association, Women Impacting Policy, the American Nurses Association, and the American Library Association.

I want to thank the Information Policy Subcommittee Chairman William Lacy Clay and Ranking Member Michael Turner, as well as Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis for their support of this important legislation. I am pleased that this bill has such strong bipartisan support and passed unanimously in both of these committees.

Anyone who has done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions. There is no reason why the Federal Government can't write tax documents and other public documents in language we can all understand.

Writing government documents in plain language will increase government accountability and will save Americans time and money. Plain, straightforward language makes it easy for taxpayers to understand what the Federal Government is doing and what services it's offering.

Small businesses will also see substantial benefits by eliminating Federal gobbledygook. Small businesses often have limited resources and are forced to hire lawyers and outside consultants to navigate the maze of Federal paperwork and convoluted language.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates that the average per hour cost of paperwork and record keeping for small businesses is $48.72 per hour. The use of clear, easy-to-understand language in government paperwork will substantially reduce burdens on small businesses.

The Plain Language in Government Communications Act will require the Federal Government to write new publications, forms and publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, well organized manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing.

I have in my hand the Plain Language Handbook that's already being used by the Securities Exchange Commission, along with the Federal Plain Language guidelines which were adopted under another plain language initiative that began under President Clinton. These guidelines make it clear that the ultimate purpose of any communication from the Federal Government should be to reach the intended audience, the constituents and citizens of this country, in language they can understand and act upon.

Using complex language in government forms, letters, notices and instructions imposes unnecessary hardships on citizens. Replacing complex language with plain language will improve services to the public, save time agencies spend answering questions about what documents mean, and make it easier to hold government agencies accountable for their work.

This document to my right is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I talk about the problem posed by using gobbledygook in Federal communications. This is a quote from a former Secretary of Defense, and it says, ``There are known knowns. These are things we know we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are some things we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.''

That is the problem we are trying to address with this bill.

One other example is this language from a Federal contract requiring investigations of contracts to make sure that they are living up to the purpose that they were intended to perform. This is the original language that was contained in the contracting compliance document, and it covers almost an entire page. The plain language version of that same admonition says simply: ``We will take two steps to look at this matter. We will find out if it was an error or a fraud, and we will let you know the result.'' Clear, concise, and directed to the intended audience.

Finally, one of the best examples of the cost-savings potential is this Veterans Administration form that was used to respond to concerns raised by veterans seeking assistance with their benefits. An old letter that was not drafted in plain language generated an average of 91.4 calls per month, a total of 10,968 calls in a year. After that same form was drafted using these very basic plain language guidelines, they resulted in only 16 calls per month and a total of 1,900 calls for the entire year. You can imagine the enormous savings of time at the Veterans Administration responding to concerns from veterans seeking assistance when you reduce it by that much.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to clarify that nothing in this bill is intended to impact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 13166, Department of Justice LEP Guidance, any agency LEP guidance, or any other statute, executive order, agency guidance, regulation, or court order regarding language access.

I hope this bill makes it easier for Americans and small businesses to work with and understand their government. I also hope that in some small way, this bill honors the memory of our former colleague, Maury Maverick, Sr., who served two terms in the House from 1935 to 1939. Congressman Maverick invented the term ``gobbledygook'' to describe bureaucratic language that was as hard to understand as the call of wild turkeys in his native South Texas.

I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who join me today in standing up for plain language, in standing up for effective communications with our constituents, in standing up for small business owners, and in standing up for taxpayers, who will see significant cost savings when this bill is signed into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague from Idaho for working to improve this bill and also for sharing my passion for making sure that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to communicate clearly and effectively with the citizens and taxpayers of this country.

I also want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for her excellent point that adopting plain language requirements does nothing to dumb down the intent and purpose of these Federal documents. In fact, the whole point of adopting plain language guidelines is to improve the effectiveness and the clarity of these documents so that the average person who interacts with them on a daily basis is able to respond directly to the responsibilities laid out under the Federal statutes and regulations and perform the obligations that they are required to by law.

So I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for having enormous opportunities to make this a bill that I think we can all be proud of, one that our constituents back home will benefit from, and one that will save, most significantly, the taxpayers of this country, in my belief, millions and millions of dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would just like to remind everyone that one of the points of the bill is it to save taxpayers money. The example that I used earlier from the Jackson, Mississippi, Veterans Benefits Administration where they changed the form that allowed them to reduce substantially the number of requests they got from veterans seeking help with their disability benefits saved $10,000 in one year, just that one form. And if you think about the multiplier effect of applying plain language guidelines to documents in every Federal agency that are being sent out to citizens and taxpayers, the enormous potential at savings is something that I think we will all be proud of once this bill is signed into law by the President.

With that, I urge its passage.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Georgia's leadership of the Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee.

A couple of things to respond to.

The matter before us involves a pay-for, because unlike much of the work of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, this majority pays for things that cost the Treasury.

Now, the HSA issue he just raised involves tax-free accounts and savings accounts to be used for health care. We ask that there be some verification to show the money withdrawn was spent for health care. That's all. What drives us to this is a report that we had from one account manager that shows these funds being withdrawn for everything from body shop repair to fast food restaurants.

Sure I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, and I only have 2 minutes, this HSA, I believe the gentleman would agree, in fact I think he said it in his comments, is for the cost of health care. It gives a tax incentive cost, a tax assistance to taxpayers for health care costs, not for body shop costs. We don't tax incent body shop costs. So we would like to shut that abuse down.

The question is legitimately raised. Is this too onerous? Absolutely not. Many of us have flex savings accounts that are used for medical costs. Now,

all we ask is that the same verification any Federal employee uses when they make a withdrawal in their flex savings account would be used to substantiate withdrawal from the health savings account. This isn't inventing something new. We've done it. It works well.

Another feature of the bill that's drawn such objection is this business of putting out of business the whole notion of private bill collectors being loosed on our taxpayers to collect revenues owed the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, I refer my colleagues to the Washington Post, the front page story today, ``Collectors cost IRS more than they raise.''

We have had, in fact, kind of the bill collection version of the $600 toilet seat for the old Pentagon contract procurements. This was advertised to cost very little, $10 to $14 million, well now up to $70 million and counting, a multiple of what was initially advertised. That's the set-up cost. They said it was going to bring all of this money. Well, the reality is it has brought in only a fraction of the money advertised.

And so on a net basis, this whole initiative to bring in money owed us has cost us money. We've been shipping more money to contractors. This is an administration and this is a minority that loves private contractors. And if it costs the Federal Government on the net balance, it doesn't matter because they just so ideologically love private contractors.

We should pass this bill and end this failed experiment of private debt collection.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to begin my remarks by commending the fine job Mr. Reynolds has done today. He has indicated that this legislation uniquely affects him because many of the people at the Pioneer Call Center, a private debt collector hired to collect this debt, are in his district. And I think we all recognize he has done a fine job in fighting for that business activity in his district today. He has given it everything he has, and I commend him for the job he has done.

But the reality in the policy context is summed up in a simple headline in today's Washington Post, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They Raise.'' Why in the world would we want to continue with an arrangement like that? But there are many other parts of this bill that are simplifying the process and are helpful to taxpayers. And that is why we have the support of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Citizens for Tax Justice, National Consumer League, Consumer Federation of America, and a late-breaking one. In fact, this organization has been mentioned on both lists, the NFIB.

Mr. Reynolds has indicated they were opposed to the bill. This is probably a development that broke later than Mr. Reynolds' information. But in fact, they are for the bill and indicate in a ``key vote alert'' that they will be scoring this as a key vote. They indicate that the ``provisions in this legislation seek to enact simpler tax rules and reduce the paperwork burden associated with tax compliance.''

They talk about a few provisions. One of them is that right now we have an onerous paperwork requirement on employers providing cell phones to employees for business purposes. I commend my Republican colleague on Ways and Means, Sam Johnson, for bringing this to our attention. I was pleased to cosponsor legislation with him now included in the bill that

makes this paperwork requirement go away.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And so including the Pomeroy-Johnson or the Johnson-Pomeroy bill in this I think was an important feature to the NFIB deliberation that this is indeed lessening paperwork requirements on small employers, and therefore they support it. They do cite a couple of other provisions, another provision of this legislation amending a recent change to the Tax Code that helps tax preparers better assist their clients by changing an established higher standard of reporting for preparers. That creates a potential conflict of interest between clients and themselves. That is addressed in this legislation.

And they also talk about the legislation including a 1-year delay of the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement by Federal, State and local governments on payments for goods and services which puts both an administrative burden on all parties involved and a strain on the daily operating cash flow of small businesses. There are other provisions, as well, but I appreciate the NFIB's laying them out as they have done on this letter.

In balance, this is a bill designed to help taxpayers. That is why we passed it out of the Ways and Means Committee. That is why it is before us on Tax Day. We urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, we have just obtained the motion in terms of trying to sort through the tax provisions, with an eye, among other things, to wondering whether or not people holding bonds of municipalities could suddenly find themselves with taxes they didn't think they were going to have when they bought these bonds.

Trying to work our way through these, one word jumped out on this motion to recommit that really has shut down all further analysis by us, and that is the word ``promptly,'' because this is yet another one of those motions to recommit that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill the bill they are trying to attach it to. That is because this would take the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act that we want to pass than April 15th and pack it off back to the Ways and Means Committee, dispensing any possibility of passing it off the floor today. It is a procedural move by the minority to try and stop us from moving forward with this legislation.

What is unfortunate about that is there are taxpayers that are going to be benefited, benefited substantially, by this legislation, small businesses that right now are subject to IRS audit exposure if they are not keeping detailed call records on cell phones that they give their employees. We want to take this relief away through this motion to recommit? I don't think so.

We go through so many positive, taxpayer-friendly provisions in this bill, provisions that have received the support of so many diverse organizations, from the League of Cities, Association of Mayors, NFIB and Consumers Federation of America, it would take that and take it off the table today, preventing the House from moving this forward.

Now, you think, why? What is the motive behind a motion like this? Why would they not want this taxpayer bill to move forward? Well, my friends, you can find it on the front page of today's Washington Post. Basically, they are trying everything they can to preserve private bill collectors hired by the IRS to chase after taxpayers.

So here on Tax Day, April 15th, we are trying to stop private bill collectors from going after taxpayers on behalf of the IRS, an endeavor that has cost taxpayers millions and brought in not enough by any measure to cover the cost; a forgone revenue opportunity of $81 million, testified by the Taxpayer Advocate, if we simply took the money we sent to these private contractors and hired employees to go ahead and collect that debt. But they are so completely convinced that they have got to pull every trick out of their hat to try and stop our efforts to rein in these private bill collectors that they brought this motion to recommit.

I would yield such time as I have remaining to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry