Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform return preparer penalty standards, delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, enhance taxpayer protections, assist low-income taxpayers, and for other purposes.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1500.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1500 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through the calendar day of Sunday, September 28, 2008. The rule is necessary because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules, as you know, only on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize such consideration.

This is not an unusual procedure, particularly at the end of the legislative session. In the 109th Congress, for instance, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. We are doing the same.

This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we adjourn. Of course, all bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn.

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

I want to respond to some of the points made by my friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, this process of allowing for suspensions on days late in the week, particularly towards the end of the session, is something that we have done quite a bit, generally on a cooperative basis, and there is a self-policing mechanism that applies.

The self-policing mechanism, of course, is the fact that to pass a suspension bill requires two-thirds vote, and the majority party does not have a two-thirds majority, so anything that's going to pass is going to require a substantial positive vote, a ``yes'' vote, from Members on both sides of the aisle.

It also is kind of a practical thing to do. Our session is getting extended a bit because we are trying to come to some resolution to ease the credit crisis that is afflicting our economy, and that's incredibly serious, requires us to stay as long as it takes to address that issue.

But many of us are not involved in the minute-to-minute negotiations, as our committee chairs are, as our leadership is. We are still on the clock, working for the American taxpayer. So if there is an opportunity to use our time productively by bringing up suspension bills that meet the two-thirds test, advances concerns of importance, if not as grave importance as the issue about Wall Street, why not take the opportunity together to move ahead on things that will be helpful to our country.

Also, just a little bit of history here, the Republicans, of course, were in the majority from 1994 until 2006. In the last session of Congress, the 109th session of Congress, they found themselves in similar circumstances at the end of the session. They had time that could be utilized and did, by bringing up some suspension bills. Then, as now, it did require a two-thirds vote before any suspension bill could pass.

I will just go through a few things. My friend probably knows all this, but I will remind him, anyway, a little education here. He was here. I wasn't.

I am told that on June 30, 2005, H. Res. 345 provided for a blanket suspension day on June 30, and that was pending the July adjournment of that year. The House took up a number of bills under that suspension authority.

Similarly, on July 28, 2005, there was a blanket suspension for suspension day. Again, the House took advantage of that. September 8, 2005, provided another day for a blanket suspension.

There are others. H. Res. 623 provided for suspension day on December 17. That applied to a number of pending House bills, H.R. 4519, H.R. 2520, H.R. 4568, H.R. 3402, H.R. 4579, H.R. 4525; a

Senate bill, S. 1281. There was a conference on Senate 467. It was a joint resolution providing for a fiscal year 2006 continuing resolution.

That was all pretty important business. It all passed with that two- thirds majority. It took advantage of the fact that many people from both sides of the aisle, who were not involved in what was the end of the session, intense negotiations on other legislation, they could use their time productively.

There were a couple of combination rules with suspension day authority. H. Res. 1096 waived the two-thirds requirement on December 7 on any rule, providing for a blanket suspension day. It tabled H. Res. 810, 939, 951 and 1047.

There was another such action on December 8, 2006, H. Res. 1102, and that waived the two-thirds rule on the December 8 proceedings on any rule and that provided for a blanket suspension on that date. There is a strong precedent here for allowing suspension authority to occur at the end of the week, rather than just the beginning of the week. Again, it's grounded in the practicality, using the time that we have, that we didn't expect to have, to advance the legislative calendar.

The gentleman from Florida mentioned the ping-pong procedure that has allowed this House and the Congress to pass critical legislation for working and middle class Americans. The fact is that we have utilized the ping-pong approach because of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate that have blocked motions to go to conference.

Incidentally, I think I probably agree with my friend that going into conference is the better way for us to try to resolve differences between the two bodies. It takes two to conference, just like it takes two to do that famous south Miami dance, the tango. I know on our side, Republicans and Democrats would prefer to be able to use the tried-and- true method of a conference committee to resolve our differences.

It certainly allows our body to be fully represented on both sides of the aisle, members of the conference would come from the Democrat and Republican Parties. It would allow for more vigorous debate about the differences between the legislation that's passed by the House and passed by the Senate. In fact, I think it's a little sad, and, frankly, dangerous a bit, that we don't have a conferencing process, because it really does allow the focus on the issues and allows for a fuller debate from which, in the ideal circumstances, a better solution emerges.

I think I am in agreement, maybe I can hear from the Member from Florida, but I think I am in agreement with him about the preference for a conference procedure. It's just not something that's unilaterally within the control of this body. That's true, whether there is a Republican majority or a Democratic majority. There certainly has to be a level of cooperation in the other body in order for the House to be able to participate in a conference.

So what we find ourselves, oftentimes, is confronted with a situation where the negotiating gets done at leadership level or at the chair of committee level. It leaves a good number of Members out of those final and often very critical negotiations about the final points of legislation that's in contention.

So maybe the Member from Florida and I can work together to try to persuade our friends in the other body to return to the tradition of House-Senate conferences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the comments made by my friend from Florida. But first of all, I thank my friend. He is very generous in his comments about me. The feelings are mutual. I have enjoyed working with you on the Rules Committee, and love hearing you speak and argue, and I know the affection people have for you here in this body. And for you to be here with your brother, what a wonderful family story, to have brothers serving together keeping an eye on each other. And you need to have an eye kept on you.

I missed the name of the philosopher from Spain.

I yield.

Well, thank you. I am going to take you up on that because you are probably more familiar with that history of Spain during the preceding Franco years and the internal revolution and during the period of the republic.

That phrase you used, man and his circumstances, is very, very powerful.

I yield.

And he had to contend with that, as did all Spaniards during the period of the republic in the revolution with just this wrenching upheaval in their own society where brothers were fighting brothers and the worst of all things were happening, as they were here during our Civil War and countrymen were pitted one against another, and people were forced to deal with circumstances that were just beyond what they ever could have imagined. And then the struggle in those circumstances for people of conscience to make a decision about what was right to do when the implication of following through and doing that right could be frightening, physically dangerous to themselves, the person who was making the decision to act, but it was equally frightening about a decision not to act and what the consequences would be for other people. So I look forward to reading that.

I am just going to make a suggestion to you. That phrase ``man is man plus his circumstances,'' and I have to write that down.

But Graham Greene is one of my favorite authors. And the reason I like Graham Greene, he writes articles about flawed human beings. The protagonists in his novels are all deeply flawed people, like all of us. They have real limitations. Some of them are alcoholics. They can't control certain parts of their behavior. But what he writes about is individuals who find themselves in circumstances where they have to make decisions that require them to act in ways that ultimately may be physically dangerous to them, but where they have a capacity to respond, to see, what the moral imperative is. And then they are able, despite their flaws and weaknesses, to summon the internal courage to do the right thing. They don't do it to be a hero. They are reluctant heroes. They end up being heroes. And in some cases they sacrifice their lives. It is not that they wanted to do it or anything that they thought about as an image of themselves. In fact, they oftentimes took refuge in their weakness, by alcohol, frequently, in the Graham Greene novels.

But when they were confronted with a situation where they had an opportunity, by circumstance beyond their control, accidental almost, where their action could save a fellow human being or turn the tide of events in a way where more people would be spared suffering, despite their weakness, despite not wanting to do it, despite their resistance, there was something deeply moral embedded in who they were where the decision they made was for others, not for themselves.

Your comments about the Spanish philosopher brought to mind the reactions I have had from reading so many Graham Greene novels.

Graham Greene. I just really appreciate your remarks.

And I want to talk about a second topic you mentioned, the importance in a democracy about procedure. The gentleman is right. One of the things that I have admired about our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, is that I believe he does his best, it is always debatable, but I think he does his best to scrupulously abide by the procedural rights.

We have battles about the rule we are bringing forward and whether it is the right thing to do or not, but I agree, procedure is important. Procedure is often substance. How you design it and allow something to be taken up really affects the outcome of what will occur.

One of the constant decisions that we have to make, you had to make when you were in the majority and we have to make while we are in the majority, is how to get a specific question to this body for an up-or- down vote. And it requires the Rules Committee, and you know better than I do, you are much more experienced on the Rules Committee than I am, it requires the Rules Committee to decide what the question will be, to decide what amendments will be allowed. There is always an ongoing tension between the majority and the minority, and that flips as the voters decide to change the majority here.

So your aggression, and that is not the right word, your defense of procedure is well taken by me.

Before I came here I served for a period of time in the State Senate in Vermont. It is a much different situation. We had 30 members, very small, very intimate. No staff. Literally no staff. The one member of the Senate who had one staff person was the President pro tempore, and I served in that job for the 4 years before I came here. But nobody else had a staff. I have gotten to like staff, don't get me wrong, but there was something quite wonderful about the fact that the members had to do all of their own work. What it meant is that we were talking to one another constantly. And the problems that were being developed couldn't be mitigated or muted by having staff talk to staff for another member.

That very intense, immediate interaction I actually thought was very helpful. I know there are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who talk, and we have this opportunity when we are on the floor voting to try to hear where each of us are coming from and what ways we may be able to find a path to getting ``yes.''

But as Senate President, I had a lot of responsibility about procedures. So I did two things that were kind of unusual, and we can't do them around here, but in the small circumstances of the Vermont Senate we could. We had 21-9 majority, and I had the cooperative power of appointment. And I appointed three members of the Republican Party to serve as chairs of important committees.

The reason that I did that, two reasons, it just so happened that the three people who got appointed were the best people for the job. They were terrific. The second reason was it allowed us to find ways to work together because we all had a stake in the future.

So any time that we can work together, I want to do it. I appreciate your openness and willingness to do that as well.

But getting back to the question before us, mainly this question of the

suspension authority and your concern about it being ``blanket,'' I understand that. But the self-correcting mechanism here is the requirement under suspension that there be a two-thirds vote. That by definition means that there has to be a good deal of support on the Republican side as well as on the Democratic side for this suspension authority to allow consideration and for a bill considered to be passed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield back, but I just want to thank the gentleman. I enjoyed this conversation. What a privilege it was to spend a little time with you talking about philosophy and literature, as well as the business of the House.

I am the last speaker on this side. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1500 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Sec. 2. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a

concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either

House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has

been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--

(A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction

of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;

(B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale

reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and

extraction;

(C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;

(D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining

capacity and nuclear power facilities;

(E) encourage advanced research and development of clean

coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies;

and

(F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably

delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Welch, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time,

and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule, which is a framework under which legislation is brought to the floor, if passed, will allow the House to consider legislation under suspension of the rules until Sunday.

Suspension of the rules is a procedure by which the House of Representatives generally acts to approve legislation promptly. Legislation considered under suspension of the rules is usually noncontroversial. It usually has bipartisan support, by virtue of the fact that in order for bills to pass under that procedure known as suspension of the rules bills have to pass with at least two-thirds of the votes of the House.

Yesterday I came to the floor to manage for the minority a similar rule. I did not ask for a vote in opposition regarding that rule yesterday. But today I must rise and oppose this rule, because unlike yesterday's rule, today's rule does not specify which bills the House of Representatives will consider. Instead, this rule, this framework that we are going to vote on now, in a few minutes, this rule provides blanket or blind authority to the majority.

Now, yesterday we received a list of 44 bills that the House was being authorized to consider. But today we received nothing, just a request in effect for absolute power to bring legislation to the floor. So this will allow the majority to bring legislation to the floor that most Members haven't even heard about, much less read, not to mention that we will have absolutely no chance to amend any of the bills.

According to a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee, such a procedure is ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite unfortunate that the majority has opted to pursue this path. In reality, this is the sixth time that the majority is bringing forth a rule like this during this Congress. I know the majority will claim that is the same number, the same amount of times that the 109th Congress used this procedure, but I would remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that in every other record for limiting debate in the House, they have far exceeded the 109th Congress, and that is so even though on the opening day of the 110th Congress the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.''

So, let us take a look at their record-breaking performance, Mr. Speaker. First let us begin with closed rules.

There can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the spirit of representative democracy than the closed rule. Those rules, closed rules, block Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments to legislation, no matter their party affiliation. When the House of Representatives is operating under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor. Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, they silenced the voice of every Member and of all the constituents of every Member a record 64 times, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-four times.

No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought forth 64 pieces of legislation during one Congress under the parliamentary procedure known as the closed rule, that shuts out all amendments, all possibility of Members, from both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority is most unfortunate. It is really, I believe, quite offensive to the democratic spirit, and really obviously a contradiction with regard to the promises made by the majority.

They have also systematically bypassed the conference process, the process by which the House and Senate reconciles differences on legislation before voting on a final version, an identical, final version of legislation before sending it to the President. They have systematically bypassed this conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

They also have used a technique known as ping-pong 14 times to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. Now, in comparison, in the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, that technique, ping-pong, that the majority has used 14 times during this Congress, that technique was used a total of three times in the prior two Congresses.

So, again, the tendency can be seen time and time again, in contradiction, direct contradiction to the promises to go in the other direction, to go in the direction of transparency and fairness and openness. So with ping-pong we also see the tendency of the majority not fail.

They also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments, again, even though they promised a procedure that, ``grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Again, the majority contradicted its own promise, directly, directly contradicted its own promise again.

Now, these records that I have alluded to, do not etch them in stone yet. We still have a few days left in the 110th Congress. I would bet that the majority will break their own records yet again and, once again, their promises for a fair and open Congress.

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

I thank my friend for his presentation.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out, that we make distinct and analyze a number of the matters that we have brought forth.

With regard to the ability of the House to consider suspension bills, it's evident that that is a process that has much tradition. My objection, and I know that in the last Congress it was done six times, and it's done six times in this Congress, but I think it's unfair, really, in an exceptional way to the membership, for them, for Members not to know even the title of legislation that is being brought forth so that, along with their staffs, they can study bills that are expected to be noncontroversial because of the two-thirds requirement, but there is a great difference. We all accept that suspension bills are a part of the process towards the end of the session, but there is a great difference between authorizing suspensions that are identified, legislation bills that are identified, like we did yesterday, and, you know, in a blanket way authorizing the majority to bring forth any bills on suspension without even identifying them, which is what we are doing today.

There is a difference. Yes, it was done six times in the last Congress, and it has been done six times in this Congress.

What I pointed out was that the tendency toward unfairness becomes evident when one analyzes the entire spectrum of activity by the majority, procedurally, six and six on what I consider to be inappropriate formats for presenting suspension bills.

But when we leave that particular aspect of the suspension bills unidentified, and we analyze, for example, the closed rules, there the majority broke the record in a significant way, 64 closed rules. That's extraordinary, that's unprecedented.

I would remind you that the closed rule is most undemocratic. Then my friend referred to the ping-pong process, the process by which conference is avoided. In the last Congress, there was a similar situation of one party in control of both Houses as there is in this Congress. Yet the times in this Congress that conference has been avoided just went through the ceiling, went through the roof, in comparison to the past. I think it was three versus 14 times. It's extraordinary, the difference. And when we analyze all of this in conjunction with and in the context of the promises made by the majority to improve instead of to worsen significantly. In other words, the promise was, with regard to these questionable procedural processes, or manners of acting, rather, the promise was, we are going to improve, we are going to have transparency, we are going to have openness, we are going to have fairness. That was the promise.

Then when you see that promise and you juxtapose it to the reality of performance, and the reality of performance is much worse, is much more unfair, it really becomes dramatic, the contrast between promise and performance. That's what I was alluding to.

With regard to some points made by my friend, it's almost inevitable for my friend from Vermont not to make appropriate and quite defendable statements, because he is one of the most respected Members of this House, and in the short period of time that he has been here, he has earned that respect on both sides of the aisle.

But I think it's appropriate to analyze, without passion, the points that I brought forth with regard to the great contrast between promise and performance of this majority. It's a dramatic contrast and an unfortunate contrast.

I would ask at this time, my friend, if he has any other speakers.

That being the case, Mr. Speaker, ``man is man plus his circumstances.'' That is one, I think, of the wisest sayings I have ever heard by one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Jose Ortega y Gasset, who led a fascinating life. He was a professor in various universities in Spain, actually dabbled in politics, was a member of the parliament during the Second Republic in the 1930s in Spain, and then was a long-time exile.

Toward the end of his life, I think he returned to Spain but just for a short period of time because he did not outlive the Franco dictatorship and Ortega y Gasset never wanted to live nor, quite frankly, visit his country under dictatorship.

But that phrase, ``man is man plus his circumstances,'' I think, summarizes so much of life. And so we today, while not engaged, because this is a procedural debate and I would expect my friend on the other side of the aisle to agree that perhaps it is not one of the most popular to watch if a guest were here in the galleries because it is procedural, this debate. And yet process really is key to the functioning of representative democracy, Mr. Speaker.

Why do I say that: because the rights of the minority are just as important

as the right of the majority to rule. You can't have a functioning, a genuine, representative democracy unless, along with the right of the majority to rule, the minority has the right to be heard. And the opposition, the minority, has the right to play a significant role. And so process is what makes that possible. Without process, guaranteeing the rights of the majority to rule and the minority to be heard and to have all of the procedural rights followed by the majority, without that process, there can be no representative democracy. And so even though this debate may seem somewhat technical, process is important.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ortega y Gasset. In Spain, you often have compound names or long names. Ortega y Gasset. An extraordinary philosopher, really a liberal in the best sense of the word and an open man, a man open to realize, my distinguished friends, that good ideas often come from not only both but all political viewpoints. And Ortega y Gasset was one such thinker. I highly recommend him to such an erudite, studious not only here Member of the House but generally a man of the law as my friend.

I thank my friend.

``Man is man plus his circumstances.''

Repeat the name of the author.

I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks, and for this opportunity of being able to bring forward the points that we both brought forward today.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at this point that Americans are really upset with regard to spending more and more of their paycheck for energy needs. For months they have been calling on Congress to consider legislation to help lower the price of gasoline.

Just like the American people, the minority has been calling for legislation that will help the American consumer with the skyrocketing price of energy. Yet every time the minority has tried to debate comprehensive energy legislation, the majority has blocked and stymied our efforts.

In August, the majority decided to close shop, head back to their districts, instead of really seeking to solve, in a comprehensive manner, this extraordinary issue facing our constituents, which is the rising price of gasoline.

So I would imagine the majority heard quite a bit from their constituents in August, because when they returned in September they decided that they would finally, at least, debate energy legislation.

Last week the majority brought to the floor their so-called Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, which really, ironically, did nothing to produce energy or provide Americans with energy security since really it only, that legislation, increased our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. So that bill is most unfortunate. Also, it won't be enacted into law, and it was only put together to provide the majority with a kind of political cover to say that they actually passed energy legislation, when, in reality, they did nothing.

Now, the majority is set to end this Congress and, really, any chance to actually pass a comprehensive energy bill, comprehensive energy legislation will also end with this Congress for now. Our point is that this is not appropriate. We think that the energy issue is of extraordinary importance, and that we should not leave without comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' to vote with me to defeat the previous question so that the House can finally consider comprehensive solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend this rule to prohibit the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment until comprehensive energy legislation has been enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can assure their constituents that they are committed to enacting legislation to help their constituents with rising energy prices.

I also remind Members that the previous question in no way would prevent consideration of any of the suspension bills.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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