Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3056) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is anything even left to say about the depths to which the House has sunk under the ``broken promise'' Democrat majority. Today, once again, the American people are being forced to endure the results of yet another evening spent in the ``broken promise'' Democrat Rules Committee, with nothing to show for it except for yet another closed rule, which was referred to today as a ``traditionally closed rule'' on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, which denies the minority even with a basic substitute amendment in this process, and to the fiscally irresponsible underlying legislation.

I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that, once again, as I have been forced to report on multiple occasions over the course of this year, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor which stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Today, that expense is on the American taxpayer, who is being targeted on behalf of big public sector union bosses to the tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a number of the myths that will be discussed surrounding this legislation and provide my colleagues and the American people who are tuning in

on C-SPAN with some of the facts about the real effect of this special interest legislation and what it would mean to the taxpayer.

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. That means that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover taxes not being paid by those who should legally be paying their taxes.

This new program, which began as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in about $2.2 billion in its first 10 years. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every single new dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that would have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government into 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 unpaid taxes. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procurement accuracy, as well 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, none which have ever been validated.

Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who do play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenue 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 the big government union bosses.

They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already use these same contract services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has 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 long- standing problems with its debt collection activities.''

Opponents have also incorrectly claimed that private debt collectors do not follow the same rules as IRS collectors. Well, this one is partially true, because these private collection agencies are subject to both Federal and State laws that are collectively more restrictive than the laws that Federal employees must follow. Private collectors follow the same privacy protections, undergo the same background checks and are subject to the same penalties if they violate any of these laws.

Opponents have also claimed that allowing for private debt collection would cost untold union jobs, a statement which is also based in an alternate reality. The private collection agencies working in this program did not and do not replace a single IRS worker.

As of this past July, 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 agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have received otherwise, of which only about one in eight went to pay for these otherwise nonexistent services. In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly effective private contracting. Instead, they will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise and resources on high priority, more complex cases.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to understand all of the facts regarding this legislation before they are influenced by the scare tactics of a few Members who are determined to kill this highly- effective program that has already proven to be cost-effective in closing the ``tax gap'' of unpaid, hard-to collect taxes.

I wish I could say they would have plenty of time to learn all the facts surrounding this legislation that is being rushed to the floor today under a completely closed process. Unfortunately, last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House of Representatives,'' the majority Rules Committee Democrats voted three times along party lines to prevent any amendment authored by a Republican from being considered today. Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest ranking Democrats in the House to run the most ``transparent, open and honest'' House in history, this Democrat majority once again has provided the House with something which is a rule that is none of the above, which is the historical tradition. Instead, we have what is referred to as a closed rule. I wish I could say I am surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new ``broken promise'' Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this ill-conceived and costly legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for taxpayers by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear arguments from my good friends about how this just won't work. But for 10 years it has worked very well, with a 99 percent accuracy, in providing billions of dollars to the taxpayer.

The bottom line is that Treasury simply focuses their activities on major accounts, and the others on smaller accounts, which is who have been handling these accounts and been very good at it, which is what we are asking to continue today. What is happening is that we found out the unions simply don't like that. They don't like somebody else perhaps getting something that they in fact never wanted to work on themselves.

So we are trying to say to the American people today, don't take away this stream of revenue. Don't take away this opportunity. Because the private sector is working on these accounts. They are not given any advantage. The

people who really end up winning is not only the Treasury Department, but, more specifically, the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this is a blatant attempt to mislead Members or not, but the gentleman, Mr. English, his bill is compliant with PAYGO rules. And to suggest on this floor that the Republican Party presented the bill, the amendment----

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Which one were you referencing, sir?

Reclaiming my time, and I will continue this dialogue, you know that we asked to have made in order one that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules, and you and your colleagues turned that down. You specifically stated: We want an amendment that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules; will you please give it to us. And we were turned down by the Rules Committee. I would engage the gentleman on that issue.

It was my amendment that I made, and I know how the gentleman voted, along with all of his colleagues. And to stand up on this floor and to say, Well, we would if they would abide by the rules, but they have to abide by the rules, is a blatant, blatant miscalculation and I think untrue and insincere. When we asked for that in the Rules Committee, we were turned down.

When we said, Give us an amendment we will make sure that the Parliamentarian and others say is compliant, we were turned down.

The gentleman, Mr. English, and I am getting ready to allow him to speak on this floor, he is in compliance with PAYGO rules. So there was not an opportunity that was given by the Rules Committee to allow us to do that. And then you stand up and say, Well, if Republicans played by the same rules as we do, then they would find them in order, that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the co-chairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, the distinguished gentleman who has an amendment that would be compliant, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

I would like to inquire upon the time remaining on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's go to the heart of this.

$30 million worth of uncollected taxes that, by the IRS's own admission, never would have been collected because they were accounts they did not want to or were not working, which are the only accounts that ever go to private debt collectors, who as private collectors receive a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism, and less than 1 percent of those accounts have any sort of complaints that are filed with the IRS, and none which have been validated. That's the substance of the case. That's why we oppose this bill and this rule. It makes no sense unless you're simply trying to do what union bosses ask you to do, which is evidently what this bill is doing.

I would also like to point out that what's very interesting is that this bill is supported by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and has a whopping nine cosponsors, a whopping nine cosponsors, and we're bringing that to the floor of the House today. Utterly amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this time the Statement of Administration Policy by the President, which this White House says that they will veto.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3056--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the

authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and

for other purposes

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

3056. The bill is not consistent with the Administration's

commitment to a balanced approach toward improving taxpayer

compliance and collecting outstanding tax liabilities. If

H.R. 3056 were presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

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. Terminating this program would result in

a loss of significant revenue over the next 10 years. These

are tax dollars that are legally owed to the Government and

that are otherwise not likely to be collected by the IRS. It

is a disservice to all taxpayers who properly pay their taxes

to terminate this program that is efficiently recovering a

portion of the extra burden they shoulder from the ``tax

gap'' caused by those who do not pay their taxes. Moreover,

the Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently reported

that the IRS has made ``major progress'' in addressing

critical success factors for the private debt collection

program, including ensuring that both taxpayer rights and the

security of taxpayer information are protected.

The Administration also has concerns with the provision of

the bill that would impose additional tax rules on

individuals relinquishing U.S. citizenship or terminating

long-term residency. The Administration strongly supports

efforts to ensure that individuals renouncing their U.S.

citizenship pay their fair share of U.S. taxes. The bill's

``mark-to-market'' approach to valuation of expatriates'

property for taxation purposes, however, overrides existing

tax treaties and raises concerns about tax complexity.

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

I thank the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do not have additional speakers at this time.

I would be very pleased to do that. I would like to ask the question back, does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here on the floor. We talked about from the Republican perspective, we're trying to follow the rules, not only of the House, but also the statements that have been made by our new Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, who said she would have the most honest, open and ethical House in history and that that would also extend to processes of amendments.

We are here on the floor of the House saying today, that's not happening, has not happened all year, and I would predict to say today probably is not about to happen. Still on the Web site for the Speaker it says this. The American people are waiting for this promise to be made.

Today, we are debating a rule and a bill that would say to the American taxpayer that the IRS and their ability to collect taxes on behalf of the American people is going to be changed, changed from accounts that the IRS has no reasonable reason to believe that they will be chasing after or trying to collect. And that's why in the first place we said from doing audits, you've got all these accounts, please pass them to someone who will do it on behalf of the taxpayer. Because if you're not trying to collect these bills, it means that people will never pay.

The result has been over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes that never would have been collected, not by the IRS, and they're done by someone, these private collection agencies, that receive a 98 percent rating by the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for

professionalism and less than a 1 percent complaint rate of which not one has turned out to be validated.

Mr. Speaker, this is an assault on not just the taxpayer. This is an assault on really good and effective and proper government, where the IRS utilizes best practice. They're utilized by over 40 State governments today to have help in collecting money that is owed not just to the government but to the taxpayers of this Nation. And today, despite the success, overwhelming success, that is occurring, the Democrat majority, with nine cosponsors plus the chairman, is interested in taking away this opportunity for the taxpayers, I will assume, because the taxpayer union of the Treasury Department does not like this happening.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have best practices. The President is right. He will veto this bill. This is a valiant effort by this Democrat majority to pay back AFL-CIO and the labor unions for their support, but it is not in the best interests of not only the taxpayer but of good and proper government.

The Republican Party is here on the floor of the House today saying that what has happened with best practices that is happening today should continue. We should have these private services that work in concert with the IRS. We should continue to give the IRS and those particular departments that do go after this money to receive directly more money that is collected that would help them hire more tax collectors, but we should not stop this process dead in its tracks because not only is it successful, but it is working as a best practice would for other people to see how important a public/private partnership is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 719 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 on House Resolution 719.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 719 provides for consideration of H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 under the traditional closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3056, implements several measures to protect the interest of taxpayers and the integrity of our tax system. First, it would once and for all repeal the IRS's authority to contract with private debt collection companies. The collection of Federal income taxes is inherently a governmental function and at the crux of what governmental responsibilities should be. This was stated as early as 1819 by Chief Justice Marshall. It was reaffirmed by Congress in 1874, when the Ways and Means Committee said that ``any system of farming the collection of any portion of the revenue of the government is fundamentally wrong.''

Tax farming, giving a private entity the right to collect taxes on a commission basis, has created modern-day bounty hunters who have no regard for the taxpayer, only regard for their company's bottom line.

Taxpayers are heavily pressured to reveal their Social Security numbers, last known address, date of birth, and other confidential information over the telephone to private contractors working on commissions of up to 25 percent of their take.

In this modern day and age where identity theft runs rampant, why would we want to turn over people's Social Security numbers and who knows what other confidential information to someone who is only out to protect their own bottom line? Noted Princeton economist Paul Krugman recently penned in the New York Times, ``Tax farming went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.'' How right he is.

The irony is that we tried this private tax collection scheme in 1996 and promptly abandoned it. Why? Because the IRS's Inspector General found that private contractors regularly violated our own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, threatened the confidentiality of taxpayers' personal information, and on top of all that, cost the government a net revenue loss of $17 million.

Despite this past history, the Republican Congress renewed this authority in 2004. What has happened since that renewal? Well, the Federal Government has spent an additional $71 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money and they have collected a grand total of $20 million in tax revenue. That is right, Mr. Speaker; we have lost another $50 million on an inefficient program that experts readily admit does not work. Even more absurd is that had the IRS been given that money, the $71 million, instead, it would have collected almost $1.5 billion.

The House has long recognized that this program simply does not work. In fact, language to stop private debt collection has passed on a strong bipartisan basis twice but has not made it into law. But don't just take my word for it. The National Taxpayer Advocate, 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.'' Even past and present IRS Commissioners have repeatedly admitted before Congress that IRS employees could perform this task at far less cost than the private agencies.

I firmly believe that when the government actually does something better than the private sector, cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector, then the government should do that job. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that IRS employees are better trained, better equipped and better prepared to handle these important responsibilities. They also protect American citizens' privacy.

H.R. 3056 recognizes this reality and restores this fundamental responsibility to the Federal Government, as our Founding Fathers intended. Second, H.R. 3056 includes language based on legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek), which provides tax relief to small businesses and administrative relief to local jurisdictions by delaying implementation of an onerous tax burden.

Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, passed by the then-Republican Congress to raise revenue, requires tax withholding of 3 percent on payments to vendors providing property or services to the government beginning in January of 2011. The 3 percent withholding requirement presents a number of administrative and practical challenges for businesses, including reducing the cash flow they need to meet operating expenses, pay suppliers or subcontractors, or meet payroll. They also present several problems for governments, including how State and local governments will be able to comply with this law, much less how the IRS will be able to afford and administer such a requirement.

H.R. 3056 takes a commonsense approach to this issue and delays the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement for 1 year. It further calls on the Department of the Treasury to study the compliance issues confronting businesses and government and report the findings to Congress. This measure is supported by State and local governments and a broad array of business organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, among others.

H.R. 3056 also clarifies that U.S. citizens who claim to be bona fide residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands receive the same procedural and administrative rights afforded to other U.S. taxpayers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 strictly adheres to the House PAYGO rule. This bill is paid for primarily by eliminating a tax loophole that currently allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying U.S. taxes simply by renouncing their citizenship or terminating their U.S. residency. Despite what you may hear today, let me be clear, closing this loophole has broad, bipartisan support and has been supported by my Republican colleagues.

I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Meek, and the Ways and Means Committee members for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this commonsense bill protects taxpayers, preserves the integrity of our tax system, and makes our tax system fairer for all. It deserves strong support of all the Members of this House floor today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we said in our opening statement, tax bills are traditionally closed due to their complexity. Under Democrats, before 1994, they were closed. Under Mr. Dreier's administration in the House Rules Committee under the Republican leadership, they were traditionally closed. Now we continue to maintain that practice. Because tax laws are so complex, late amendments that have not been fully vetted and analyzed are simply too complex to insert into the Tax Code without knowing their full ramifications.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sessions, my colleague from Texas, mentioned that the McCrery substitute was not made in order. He is correct about that. It was not made in order because it violates the PAYGO provisions of our House rules. I have a copy of it right here. It simply does not meet the PAYGO statutory requirements of the House rules.

Finally, the Republican privatization bill that had passed in a prior Congress, when it was implemented it spent $71 million to collect $20 million. That is a loss of $50 million. Even with the creative accounting of the Republican ``voodoo math,'' I cannot believe that they are advocating continuation of this program that has lost money.

Further, the use of private contractors to collect Federal taxes violates a confidential and fundamental relationship between American taxpayers and the Federal Government. IRS employees have access to a taxpayer's complete tax history, including personal information that is ready identifiable. That should be restricted only to IRS employees. By prohibiting the IRS from hiring private debt collectors, this bill will ensure that the privacy rights of Americans and other confidential information of taxpayers is protected from bounty hunters working on commissions of up to 25 percent.

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

I called it traditional.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California is a very skilled orator, and I appreciate his speaking ability. I will tell you, however, one of the great tools that people use when they are as talented as Mr. Dreier is, when they don't want to talk about the bill at hand, they talk about everything else around it.

The reality is that the bill at hand, the rule that we are trying to move forward to bring a bill to the House floor today, eliminates privatization of tax collection.

Now, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle love privatization. They love it in Iraq where it has not worked and our military is struggling under the burden of having privatization and contractors, war contractors not doing what they should be doing and charging four times what they should be charging to do it. We see all of the problems that have happened there.

We have seen the same thing happen here in the United States where Federal contracts have been let. Mr. Waxman's committee has done incredible work rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the private contractor system.

And then they want to turn over the collection system of the IRS to private hands, putting at risk all Americans' private information and documents. They like privatization; they just don't like protecting your privacy.

The gentleman from California talked about all kinds of issues but he didn't talk about the root problem that we are trying to address here, and that is stopping bounty hunters from harassing American taxpayers.

Finally, Mr. Dreier talked at great length about the McCrery substitute and the fact that Mr. McCrery has not gotten a substitute this year.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this year that I have managed a rule where the Republican substitute has violated the House rules. I am a member of the Blue Dog Coalition as well as being a member of the Rules Committee. I am very proud that for the whole time I have been here as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, we advocated for advancement of the PAYGO rule. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe we need to pay our debts. So we got, when we took over the majority, inserted into the House rules a clause that says we have to pay as we go. We have to do it like every American taxpayer has to run their own home. We have to run this House in a fiscally responsible way. And so we mandated the PAYGO rules.

The substitute put forward by the Republicans, for the second time that I have managed a rule anyway, has violated those PAYGO rules. When you don't follow the House rules, you can't expect your amendment to be made in order, Mr. Speaker. I encourage my colleagues to abide by those rules and honor the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I wasn't referring to Mr. English's bill.

I was referring to Mr. McCrery's substitute.

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

I wish to commend my colleague Mr. English. He is a very thoughtful individual and a very good legislator, and I would just say that while his amendment was PAYGO compliant, we were not aware of that until this morning when the tax tables were submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. So last night when the Rules Committee was dealing with this issue, we had no way of knowing whether his substitute was, in fact, PAYGO compliant or not.

With regard to Mr. McCrery's substitute, I have it here with me. The substitute that was submitted by Mr. McCrery was, in fact, not PAYGO compliant. Now, Mr. Sessions says that he made the motion to allow it to be PAYGO compliant, but the bill before us at that point in the Rules Committee was not.

I would like to say, also, that Mr. English's substitute doesn't deal with the base bill, which is to stop the privatization of tax collection, and that is what the majority is trying to get at today.

Now, certainly there are other issues that are worthy of consideration in this institution. AMT is certainly one of them. But in this provision today, the majority wants to bring forward a bill that would stop American taxpayers from being harassed by private bounty hunters. That's the issue before us today. And all the other issues that people are trying to discuss one way or another, they have nothing to do with this base bill and really don't apply to the debate we want to have in the next hour.

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

I would like to inquire from my colleague if he has any remaining speakers.

Would the gentleman like to close?

I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007, stops wasting taxpayer money on programs that cost too much, gives away confidential taxpayer information, and results in taxpayer harassment by bounty hunters and simply never has and never will work. It didn't work in the early 1800s, it didn't work in the late 1800s, and it doesn't work in the year 2007.

Mr. Sessions mentioned that there are these Republican best practices that would enhance our collection methods. Well, let's talk about that.

The Republican bill spent $71 million to collect $20 million, resulting in a $51 million loss. If Mr. Sessions wants to claim those as Republican best practices, he can do that. However, if the Federal Government employees, the traditional men and women who have served our country honorably, if they had had the ability to use that same $71 million, they would have collected $1.5 billion in taxes owed to this Treasury, $1.5 billion that could be used to, well, maybe fund SCHIP so that our poor young children could get the health care they deserve.

Mr. Sessions talks about that this bill only has 11 cosponsors. Well, this bill is a compilation of bills that was put together in the last few weeks, and, in fact, the base bills that this bill is based upon, Mr. Van Hollen's bill has 156 coauthors and Mr. Meek of Florida's bill has over 100. So there is wide support for this bill. The public should not believe that there are just a few folks thinking this is a good idea. This has wide support. It has had a number of hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and there has been great testimony with regard to the fact that the current program put in by the Republicans in the last few years has not and will not work and should not continue to be allowed as the law of the land.

H.R. 3056 does something very fundamental. It protects taxpayers and ensures their privacy. It addresses withholding concerns raised by business and local government. It cracks down on yet another tax loophole for the wealthy that has been left open under the prior Congresses for far too long, and, most importantly, it continues to make our taxes fair for all.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deserves this House's strong support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. HERGER Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule on H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. This rule, on legislation to halt collection of previously uncollected tax debts, wrongly prohibits any Republican amendments. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery, would have allowed for consideration of full repeal of the 3 percent withholding burden, which is so important to thousands of U.S. businesses. This was rejected by the Rules Committee on Tuesday evening. This rule stifles debate and is counter-productive to the bipartisanship we've worked for this year on the 3 percent withholding repeal. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

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

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

Well, it's appropriate that we talk about a $600 toilet seat because, indeed, this bill smells to high heaven.

The truth of the matter is you will hear a lot of wild claims made on the House floor today, but in truth the Joint Taxation Committee, Congressional Budget Office, and every other independent agency has testified that passing this bill will cost the American taxpayers more than $1 billion. It is a testament that this program is working and will continue to work to save dollars for the American taxpayer by going after those who owe their taxes on behalf of those of us who pay our taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3056. This bill would eliminate a program that is actually making money for the government: overdue tax bills collected by qualified private companies from people that owe too little for the IRS to use up valuable resources in going after them. To date, the IRS has turned over 90,000 cases worth nearly half a billion dollars. And the dollars add up to the tune of $32 million collected since last month, and there's more to come. As I said, more than $1 billion over the next decade.

This is money that is helping to close the tax gap and is revenue that the Treasury Department can use to hire more employees. Under the program the IRS can retain up to a quarter of the collection to hire additional enforcement workers, and already some $5.7 million has been designated by the IRS for collection activities and $20 million has gone toward deficit reduction. So it is helping reduce the Federal deficit.

Some argue that collection agents have harassed taxpayers. The reality is that these agents are held to the same standards as IRS employees when it comes to protecting taxpayer rights. As a matter of fact, out of 51,000 cases, it was testified at our recent Ways and Means Committee hearing there were no, zero, violations of taxpayer privacy, zero.

These companies do face difficulties in finding the correct person, as the IRS does not provide the collectors with the taxpayers' last known phone numbers. This might be an area to look for reforming, rather than killing, this important program.

Some argue that the IRS could collect the same debts more cheaply if they could hire more employees. But the truth of the matter is these taxpayers have already been contacted four times by the IRS and they have not had luck in collecting them.

A GAO report in 2004, General Accountability Office, says that these private companies can recover $4.60 for every $1 spent while additional IRS employees would recover less, would be less efficient in recovering.

The bottom line is that the program is working, taxpayer rights and privacy are being protected. The program allows IRS to do what they are good at: enforcement of higher profile debts while allowing private collection agents who have to be qualified to collect smaller debts owed by tens of thousands of taxpayers.

And private debt collectors aren't a novel idea. Other Federal agencies and many States, 40 States, and thousands of local government agencies use private agents to collect everything from overdue income taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, to local property taxes. It's working, and it would be a disservice to taxpayers who actually pay their taxes on time to discontinue it now.

The bottom line truly, Mr. Speaker, is are we serious about closing the tax gap. Are we serious about collecting the debts that are owed? People here tend to always see things in black and white, and you will hear this in the debate today. You are either for or against the IRS, for or against private debt collectors.

The truth of the matter is our goal is to collect the taxes the most efficient way. It will take a partnership of our IRS employees, who do an excellent job, and private debt collectors, who do an excellent job in the tougher debts, to collect in order for the taxpayers to truly get the dollars that they are owed and this country the dollars that are truly owed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the General Accountability Office has testified that, in fact, private debt collectors are more efficient per dollars than the IRS employees with these types of debts, which is what we are comparing. And, again, we have IRS employees with the ability to levy liens and fines, they are able to compel certain types of taxpayers to pay efficiently, and they can go after the larger, more complex cases very well. It is this group here that we've had difficulty collecting taxes from in the past that these proven tax collectors across 40 States have done such a good job collecting. And that is the bottom line; are we going to collect the taxes of the American people or not?

With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who has worked very hard on behalf of American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this practice has already generated nearly $6 million for additional IRS agents in collection activities at the agency.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that at the Ways and Means hearings, the Government Accountability Office testified they had looked for but could not find any evidence that the private collection agency selected individuals for the survey based on their perception of what the responses would be. I would point out that the same agency testified that there were zero, no violations of any privacy rights through 51,000, and growing, cases, zero violations. And I do wish that those telephone tapes could be played here on the House floor so members of the public as well as Congress could hear the professionalism of those phone calls as they seek to identify sensitively the individuals who do owe dollars to the American taxpayers.

I will point out, too, that if these debts were so easy to collect by the IRS, why did the IRS already have four opportunities to collect them from each taxpayer before they were turned over to these agencies, who have done such a good job, a solid job of collecting them?

With that, I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) who has not only fought on behalf of taxpayers but has a number of women and minority workers and professionals in his district who have done a wonderful job in this arena.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the claim has been made that our taxpayers have been harassed, IRS itself has testified there is a 97 percent satisfaction rate with the process that is already in place with these private collection agencies. I must point out, too, that while a claim is made that past Congresses starved the IRS, the truth is actually the opposite. The agency last year added over 200 new field collection personnel. This year's budget will add even more agents to the IRS. This program that is being sought to be eliminated has already generated almost $6 million for more IRS agents in a collection agency.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time does each side have remaining.

At this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

I would point out it is difficult to have an abusive program when there is 97 percent customer satisfaction and zero privacy violations and zero Fair Debt Collection Act violations. Zero. I point out as far as efficiency, you don't have to take anyone's word on this floor if this program is working. Attached to this bill is testimony that says eliminating it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $1 billion.

So you don't have to take our word for it. The experts who are independent, who have looked at this issue, know this is an efficient program for the U.S. taxpayers.

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

MR. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, our information is somewhat different from the information just propounded. We believe indeed the record would show there have been 83 complaints. These complaints include taxpayers who have

received letters with another taxpayer's information inside. Now, if this isn't a taxpayer privacy violation, I don't know what is. At least one fine has been assessed, and this is in the early going of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge perfection is a pretty hard standard to meet, but they have not met perfection and they have not generated the money in collection that was advertised at the beginning of this endeavor.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who has long had concerns about this initiative and worked hard to end it.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that private debt collection is used by 40 different States, whose Governors are Republican and Democrat, and thousands of local government agencies and organizations, again, both Republican and Democrat. This isn't an issue of privatization, it is an issue of efficiency. This partnership between the IRS and private debt collectors for this group of taxpayers who are hard to collect those taxes from will yield an additional $1 billion for the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Chamber that more than 40 States, not just this administration, more than 40 States, Democrat Governors and Republican Governors, use the exact same type of collection techniques, the same partnerships, to do what is right for the American people.

I would point out that we have heard claims today of literally tens of thousands of people who have been harassed by these private debt collectors, all the abuses. I would simply challenge you to name one. In this debate today, name one. Name the person, name the case where there was a privacy abuse or thousands of harassing phone calls. I would predict there will be no name mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that attached to the majority's bill that this House is considering today, according to the majority's bill, the Joint Tax Group testifies and asserts that this program, that is working today, will collect $1 billion more. You can hear every claim you want on this House floor, but their own bill says to the American public that this program will collect $1 billion more than if it were to be eliminated. That is not at dispute today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.

We hear a lot of claims today about the efficiency of this program. But our agencies, the independent agencies, the Government Accountability Office and Joint Tax, make the point attached to this legislation that this program has worked, is working efficiently, and will save U.S. taxpayers more than $1 billion.

You will hear today about abuses. But the fact of the matter is they can name not one in any independent agency, including the IRS, the Treasury. Examination of the program has showed 97 percent customer satisfaction, zero privacy violations, and zero Fair Debt Collection Act violations, zero, no matter what is talked about.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, the question before us today is not about privatization. This is about credibility. This majority has talked about closing the tax gap, what is owed and what is paid. Yet today we will widen that tax gap by over $1 billion. So the question is will we walk the walk, or just talk the talk about the tax gap.

This partnership between the IRS and these private collection agencies is working for the American public. We ought to let it continue to work for the American public, because we can use that $1 billion for health care, for education, for helping our veterans, for a number of important priorities in this budget.

And we will have some type of a financial standoff here in a few months, yet we let $1 billion escape our grasp. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding, and I want to buttress his argument, which is a very clear one. Obviously, we want to ensure that every American pays their fair share of taxes.

We have had a dramatic increase in collection success by virtue of this program, and here we are gutting it because a very small group of people seems to oppose it. It happens to be union opposition.

As a taxpayer, I pay my fair share of taxes. I want to make sure that every other American pays their fair share of taxes, and that is exactly what this 10-year-old program has done, and has done with success.

Mr. Speaker, I really am very, very puzzled as we begin today with the debate on two rules that will lead to legislation being considered here on the House floor. The reason I am perplexed is we are dealing with two very important issues.

The majority leadership clearly has its right and its responsibility to move their agenda. They want to do what they are planning to do now on this issue of private sector collection of taxes, and they want to dramatically expand housing programs. Those are the two things that the majority is planning to move to the floor today. But I just don't understand, Mr. Speaker. I just don't understand why it is that we are doing what we are doing.

My friend from California, Mr. Cardoza, just described how the Rules Committee was run when I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the committee. He said we have what is a customary closed rule, I think is the term that he used. Is that the term? I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I thank my friend for clarifying that. He described it as a traditional closed rule.

I will say that it is true that on tax bills both parties recognize that the notion of completely opening up a Tax Code measure in the Ways and Means Committee is not the wisest thing to do, so neither party has done that.

But I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: We, when we were in the majority, regularly ensured that the ranking minority member, Mr. Rangel, had a substitute that he could offer. In fact, on numerous occasions we offered Mr. Rangel the chance to propose a sight-unseen substitute to measures that were coming forward, and I will admit, I will admit that on occasion, but a very rare occasion, we did not provide that substitute to Mr. Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, I will say when that happened, Mr. Rangel clearly let us know how unhappy he was that he did not have a substitute.

We all know that at the beginning of this Congress we had this document put forward by the new majority called ``a New Direction for America.'' In this document, the item titled ``Regular Order For Legislation'' under ``A Congress Working For All Americans,'' paragraph 2 reads as follows, Mr. Speaker. It says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the rights to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' This is the commitment that was made to the American people under ``A New Direction for America.''

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that having a completely open rule on a measure that emerges from the Ways and Means Committee is not the wisest thing for us to do. But, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today on this rule is absolutely outrageous and a complete violation of this commitment that was made at the beginning of this Congress for a new era of openness, transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, as I said last night in the Rules Committee, we have now almost completed the first session of the 110th Congress. Our target adjournment date is October 26, just a couple of weeks away. On not one occasion in this entire session of Congress has the distinguished ranking minority member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), been offered the chance to propose a substitute to any measure that has emerged from the Ways and Means Committee.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, as we regularly get criticized for when we were in the majority, we never did anything close to that.

Now, I am saddened greatly by the fact that we are not only doing this on this rule, Mr. Speaker, but on the next measure that we are about to bring up. It is going to be another item that will have come from the Committee on Financial Services. It's a plan to dramatically increase housing.

Last week we had a measure that came from the Committee on Financial Services and it was a flood insurance bill. Not a terribly partisan issue, a measure that has impacted Democrats and Republicans on the gulf coast, Florida, along the eastern seaboard and other parts of our country. Democrats and Republicans.

As we all know, last week in the measure that emerged from the Committee on Financial Services, the Rules Committee had a wide range of amendments that were proposed by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services talked about a commitment that had been made to allow a number of Republican amendments to be considered, so those Members withdrew their amendments when they were debating this in the Committee on Financial Services on flood insurance.

The day before the committee reported that out, we happened to have unveiled, as Members of the minority, our report providing an assessment of basically the first 9 months of the Pelosi Speakership and the way the Speaker's Rules Committee has been run. This report, very brief, lots of graphs in it, 10 pages long, I would commend it to my colleagues. They can get a copy by going to rules- Republicans.house.gov. I would recommend that they look at this, Mr. Speaker, and the reason is, if you compare this performance, whether it is denying Members a chance to even submit amendments to the Rules Committee, which is something we would have never comprehended, to having double the number of closed rules as we did at this point in the 109th Congress, you will see, Mr. Speaker, that this report shows that the performance of the first session of the 110th Congress has been 180 degrees from what was promised the American people.

So last week when we had this flood insurance measure that came forward, as I said, an agreement had been struck between the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and a number of Republicans on that committee to have their amendments considered. And what happened? There were 13 amendments made in order, Mr. Speaker. Not one single Republican amendment was made in order. Not one single Republican amendment was made in order. This is not just a party thing; this is the American people who are not allowed to be heard because these representatives represent people along the eastern seaboard, the gulf coast, Florida, areas impacted by floods and hurricanes. We have flooding in California and all across the country.

Here is what happened. The American people whose representatives had thoughtful proposals, and the chairman of the committee thought those proposals should be heard, were denied by this Rules Committee, and it just happened the day after this report which we hoped would lead the new majority to help keep the promises made in a new direction for America. And what happened? They did even worse.

And so where do we stand today, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Sessions has just pointed out what has happened in this rule. Again, not one chance in this entire Congress for the ranking minority member of the Ways and Means Committee to offer a proposal.

And in the next bill we will have before us, unfortunately, there is not a single Republican amendment made in order. Yes, there is a substitute, the Neugebauer substitute; but not one Republican amendment made in order,

and all seven of the amendments that the Democrats proposed have been made in order.

Now, I had an exchange with the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and while he did not support most or any of these amendments that I know of, unfortunately what happened was, when the committee chairman said we ought to consider some of these, the committee chose to completely shut out Members of the minority from having an opportunity other than the Neugebauer substitute.

Mr. Speaker, let me say I am puzzled and I am saddened, both, as I look at this performance. When we are promised a new direction for America and greater transparency, disclosure and accountability, and generally a full and open debate, including a substitute, which is the exact wording that Speaker Pelosi had in this new direction for America, and here we are doing the exact opposite.

Now, on this measure itself, I hope very much we will defeat the previous question so the very thoughtful work Mr. English has done dealing with relief for the American people from the onerous burden of the alternative minimum tax can be addressed. Unfortunately, that is not allowed. But I do believe if we defeat the previous question, we can allow the American people to have a chance to have some kind of relief from the onerous alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me so much time, but I felt compelled to make these arguments on this bill and the next bill that will be coming forward. I hope, and I am very sincere about this, as an institutionalist, I hope and pray that we will do better for the American people when it comes to structuring and allowing full and fair and free debate on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this bill, H.R. 3056.

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

We are in a time where there is a complete fascination in this administration with contracting out. If you are happy with Blackwater in Iraq, then I expect you are perfectly fine with contracting the debt collection of IRS debt to private bill collectors. But there are some essential facts at issue which should give us pause to reconsider.

First, the start-up costs. We were told, in testimony by the IRS Commissioner, this venture was going to cost about $14 million to get up and running. The tab so far, $70 million, five times the anticipated cost to begin this venture.

Now, you might say, well, okay, start-up costs are a little more than expected, but how are we doing on receipts now that we have got them fully going, collecting these receipts? We don't have a very good story on that one either.

It was anticipated that $46 million to maybe $63 million would be collected. Coming in at about half of that anticipation, $32 million in. It costs five times more to start and bringing in about half as much as advertised.

Well, okay, $32 million. It still sounds like a lot. Well, not really when you consider the fact they have been given 118,000 cases with an unpaid debt of $512 million. For the kind of money we have invested, do you know what we are getting back? We are getting about a 6 percent return from this experiment in private debt collection.

You might be asking yourself, look, there must be some more efficient way to do this. Well, there sure is. Let's fund the IRS, hire, train, manage the debt collection. My gosh, if there is one government responsibility, it ought to be in making certain that the revenue owed is the revenue raised.

And the statistics show by the IRS themselves that for $1 spent on IRS staff collecting debt, you get a 20 to 1 return, $20 back for every $1 spent. Private debt collection, the IRS again projecting, at best, $4 back for every $1 spent. That's $20 if we hire to $1 spent, $4 if we hire to every $1 spent under contracting. And that's their projection.

Look, at $32 million collected and $70 million spent, we are collecting 50 cents for every dollar spent so far. That's pretty bad business. If we had spent the $71 million to hire a Federal collection staff, we would have already collected $1.4 billion. That is the total amount they project over 10 years under this experiment of private debt collection.

I sit on the Ways and Means Committee. And as we considered this notion before it became operative, I thought this is the most expensive way to do this. It reminded me of that $600 toilet seat that the Department of Defense paid for awhile back. I call this a $600 toilet seat of tax collection. Well, when you look at it, they have taken $70 million to build this gold-plated throne and they flushed away $50 million on this foolish experiment.

There are many reasons to end this ill-advised endeavor, and the speakers we present are going to offer those reasons. But the fundamental is it's a matter of dollars and sense, and this don't make sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, the unrefuted data is that IRS collection with IRS staff is five times more efficient in terms of dollars received than contracting out. If we are worrying about IRS efficiency, do it on the staff model.

And I might say that their cost estimate about this bill contemplates that the IRS would hire no staff, would just forget hiring out contractors, hire no staff, and just walk away from them.

No. We have got a very different notion. We want to take the money we are sending to these private bill collectors and hire IRS staff that are going to collect on this five-to-one ratio. We have got a much better, more efficient model to address this issue of unpaid balances owed to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

We had hearing testimony on the survey that was referenced by my friend from Florida. Basically, the GAO testified that the survey was fundamentally flawed. Of 300,000 conversations that have taken place, 1,000 were the subject of the survey for getting taxpayer satisfaction, and the private debt collectors were able to pick which ones got the survey. So a 1,000 survey sample out of a 300,000 universe, with those stakeholders picking the ones that get to say it, was not deemed as credible by the GAO and not deemed as credible by the majority on Ways and Means.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has spoken passionately about the jobs in his district, and I look forward to working with him on economic revitalization issues so vitally important to rural areas like the ones he and I both represent. But this is really not a jobs program before us. What is the best way for taxpayers to have collected what they owed? We want to collect what we are owed. We believe for every IRS employee, we are going to collect $20. For every private debt collector, the optimistic projection is you are going to collect $4. The reality has been much less than that. So when we are talking about the issue before us, what is the best way to get the money we are owed? The best way to do it is hire the personnel, train the personnel, run an IRS capable of getting its job done.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the bill's prime sponsor, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, as part of the IRS appropriation, we fund the National Taxpayer Advocate. In her 2006 annual report, she writes, ``We are concerned that private collectors are using trickery, device and belated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act warnings to take advantage of taxpayers. We are concerned private collectors are taking advantage of taxpayers.'' That is from the National Taxpayer Advocate.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who has advanced the prohibition of this ill-advised endeavor in the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just again read from the National Taxpayer Advocate report: ``We are concerned private collectors are taking advantage of taxpayers.'' I will submit this for the Record.

With that, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, the cost cited assumes that not a nickel is spent on IRS capacity. Indeed, if we spend it on IRS capacity, the unrefuted evidence is that it would be a 5-to-1 return relative to private collectors.

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe private debt collection of IRS debt is a terrible idea and an important matter, which is why the majority leader will close for our side. I yield the balance of our time to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is an articulate and forceful advocate. And we are all moved by the story of his time with the accountant, but they did not owe a tax. And basically, there is a figure missing from the motion to recommit he brings before us today, a very important figure: the cost of what the underlying motion to recommit would require. That figure is $498.8 billion. Now, we are a Nation of $9 trillion of debt, $9 trillion of debt, and they bring forward a proposal that would add another $498.8 billion, and they fail to say anything about how they are going to pay for it in their motion.

Well, obviously serious-minded legislators like my friend would not bring forward a serious proposal about repeal of the estate tax without some means of paying for it, and that is really what the heart of this motion is. It is not a real estate tax motion. This is a kill-the- underlying-bill motion.

The other side has some different priorities. Last week they were against SCHIP, expanding health insurance to uninsured kids. This week they are basically for privatizing debt collection of IRS debt. You like what Blackwater is doing in Iraq; you're going to love sending IRS debt to private bill collectors here.

Because they aren't going to prevail on the debate itself, they want to keep the vote from happening at all, which is what the underlying motion to recommit does, sends it promptly back to the Ways and Means Committee, which means the underlying bill is not before the House for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, to further use the time in our opposition to the motion to recommit, it is my honor to yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.