Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008

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. 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 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

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.

I thank my friend, the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Thursday, the House will meet at 8:30 a.m. and recess immediately to allow for the Former Members Association annual meeting, and will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. for legislative business after the meeting is concluded.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007; H.R. 5719, Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008; and H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008.

In addition, we intend to consider at some point next week the bill we started today, H.R. 2537, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring. We will consider that to its conclusion.

I am not sure when it was introduced, very frankly. It was marked up this week and reported out of committee. Whether it was introduced this week or not, I do not know.

As you know, Secretary Spelling has indicated this is a very severe challenge confronting student loans. Obviously we want to get ready for September in particular so families have some confidence they will be able to secure loans for their children, or for young people going to college, securing the loans themselves.

If the gentleman would yield, I would agree with the observation on our side. I say that, and it is obviously not humorous except to me.

The fact of the matter is I believe that what was said on this side of the aisle and what the Speaker has indicated was that this was sent down we believed contrary to normal practice not with agreement of the leadership and the administration on how this would be considered. The Speaker believed, and obviously the House did as well, that additional time was needed. This was not, the Speaker has indicated that, an attempt to kill this agreement. It still could come up. There still is going to be discussion between the administration and ourselves. We want to resolve some outstanding issues and discuss what we might reach agreement on with the President and the administration.

As you know, we began those conversations yesterday. You and I were down there at the White House together. We hope to continue and hope for positive movement. Regarding other agreements that are pending, we have not discussed nor ruled out the possibility that future trade agreements may be considered by this Congress.

I don't think this was intended necessarily to be precedent-setting. The precedent, of course, has

been that administrations, Republican and Democratic, have discussed with Republican and Democratic Congresses the timing and conditions under which these would be sent forward. We did not believe that had been accomplished this time. The administration's perspective was that there had not been response to their attempts to do so. Whatever the reasons, the answer to your question is we do not believe at this point in time that this is precedent for the two pending agreements.

But I don't want to by that response represent, if we were confronted with the same set of conditions, that is, that we did not reach agreement on how those agreements were moving forward, that this might not be again something that might be considered. But it is not precedent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say that last week, and I would reiterate the comment, I don't think I spoke to when the committee would move on it. What I did say was that hopefully the supplemental would be on the floor either the last week in April or the first week in May. I don't think that I referenced the committee consideration of that. I still believe that is the case.

With respect to your second question as to what might be on the supplemental, obviously it has not been marked up in committee. There are discussions, as have been reported in the public press, with respect to either language that might be appended to that by the committee or by the House itself. I would not want to preclude that effort.

I want to say that it is my understanding that the President has made a comment today again that what I sent you and the dollar I sent you, not a penny more will I sign.

I will tell my friend, I don't think that is particularly useful. It continues to say from the President of the United States to the Congress of the United States, which is, after all, the policymaking body of this country under the Constitution, ``What I propose you take, or we'll leave it. We'll not do anything other.''

I would hope to have discussions on this. As you know, the economy is in crisis. It is very nice to give money to Iraq. As you know, I support funding our troops. Having said that, we have people in crisis in housing, we have people in crisis in jobs, we have people in crisis without health care, and we have people in crisis with their educational expenses. We have a lot of people in this country who are in trouble.

We think that they need to know that the Congress of the United States is responding to their issues as well as to the issues that the President brings up with respect to Iraq.

So I don't want to commit us to simply doing exactly what the President asks, or apparently thinks he can tell us to do. We don't think that is the process.

Well, of course, as you know, we have passed legislation that's still pending in the Senate. In addition to that, as you know, gas prices in January 2001 were $1.46, on average, in this country. They're now, on average, $3.30, so they've more than doubled during the last 87 months of this administration. We're concerned about that, as I know you are as well. The public would like to have $1.46 gas, I'm sure, back. And we are concerned about that.

We're concerned about energy independence. We all know that it's going to be very tough in the short term on both sides, it's recognized in the short term, to do something on gas prices, given where we are today from that $1.46 where we were in January of 2001.

Having said that, this bill that was on the floor today was an important bill. It was an important bill to a Member on your side of the aisle, and you and I had the opportunity to talk to him about it. It was a bipartisan bill. It's a bill that we thought had merit. And, as a matter of fact, my expectation is that overwhelming numbers of the House are going to vote for it when it comes up for final passage.

But, clearly, gasoline prices, gasoline, energy independence, which is a critical component of why we are in the position of having to pay such high prices, because we don't have great alternatives, getting more efficient automobiles, using alternative energy sources, providing for renewable fuels, as you know, I think you and I, I know you and I were both down when we presented the President with a bill that was signed by him at the Energy Department. We in a bipartisan way moved towards that last year on bills that we passed in a bipartisan way.