Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 23) to rescind certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue Service, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the process for considering our first bill of the 118th Congress reflects our commitment to Americans and an open legislative process.

Congresswoman Michelle Steel and I first introduced this bill in September. Members were given more than 72 hours' notice prior to today's consideration.

Mr. Speaker, 72 hours is more than enough time for Members to review this bill. In fact, it is two pages long and covers only one topic.

If Members wish to vote on this bill, they must be present in the House Chamber because proxy voting is no longer an option.

Now let's focus on what this bill does--it repeals the vast majority of the Internal Revenue Service funding Democrats enacted last year in order to pay for their Green New Deal.

The primary purpose of that funding is hiring more auditors and support staff to vastly expand IRS's audit capacity. And not just audits on wealthy Americans. With that expanded capacity, IRS can bring in more revenue by auditing more middle- and lower-income families and more small businesses.

Families and small businesses are struggling under the weight of record inflation and supply chain shortages. Small businesses are struggling to find workers at any wage.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, about 85 percent, follow the law and pay their taxes. The last thing they need is more IRS agents knocking on doors to conduct audits.

Yet, this IRS funding is part of the broad Biden administration strategy to tax and audit exponentially more Americans by looking into their bank accounts, requiring online payment services to report them when they split a dinner check with friends or pay their babysitter after a night out, and then target them using 87,000 new IRS employees.

Americans deserve to know their government is working for them, not against them.

Today, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear Democrats claim there really won't be 87,000 new IRS employees. I imagine that they will say that new employees aren't going to target middle-class families and small businesses, and that Republicans don't care about IRS's customer service failings.

Let's focus on the facts. When a Federal agency hires a new employee to replace one who retires, it does not increase the agency's head count. Yet, the Biden administration's own documents say they are increasing the head count by 87,000 over the next decade with these funds.

Secretary Yellen's own instructions to IRS stated audit rates of families earning less than $400,000 should continue to be audited at historically similar rates. Under those instructions, 9 out of every 10 new audits can target families earning less than $400,000.

And because Republicans are committed to delivering a government that is accountable, this bill retains funding for customer service and IT modernization at IRS--despite the fact these accounts would be more appropriately addressed through regular appropriations--to ensure IRS has the resources to make much-needed improvement to taxpayer services.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous reasons to support this bill. It protects families and small businesses. It ensures agencies are funded appropriately. Most importantly, it stops autopilot funding for an out- of-control agency that is perhaps most in need of reform. IRS needs to fix its customer service and return processing problems, not focus on auditing families and small businesses.

Americans want an IRS that works for them, not against them.

This bill is a great first step in that direction, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an excerpt from a 2021 Biden administration proposal called ``The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda'' that asks for $80 billion in IRS funding and clearly shows a plan for 86,852 new hires.

[From the U.S. Department of the Treasury, May 2021]

The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda

Restoring IRS Resources

The first step in the President's efforts to restore IRS

enforcement capability is a sustained, multi-year commitment

to rebuilding the IRS. This involves spending nearly $80

billion on IRS priorities over the course of the decade

including hiring new specialized enforcement staff,

modernizing antiquated information technology, and investing

in meaningful taxpayer service--including the implementation

of the newly expanded credits aimed at providing support to

American families. Importantly, the additional resources will

go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes,

and audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for

those earning less than $400,000 in actual income.

The President's proposal includes two components: a

dedicated stream of mandatory funds ($72.5 billion over a

decade) and a program integrity allocation ($6.7 billion over

a decade). These mechanisms provide for a sustained, multi-

year commitment to revitalizing the IRS that will give the

agency the certainty it needs to rebuild.

The IRS proposal includes year-by-year estimates of the

additional resources that will be directed toward the agency

as well as the specific activities that these resources would

support. The design ensures that the IRS is able to absorb

and usefully deploy additional resources over the entire 10-

year horizon and keeps budget growth manageable at around 10

percent per year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Republican Ways and Means Committee release that explains the Congressional Budget Office's determination that it expects over $20 billion in revenue to come from the increased audits on taxpayers--that means families and small businesses making less than $400,000.

[From waysandmeans.house.gov, August 12, 2022]

CBO: New IRS Audits Will Grab at Least $20B from Lower- & Middle-Income

Families

Key Point: At least $20 billion of the revenue Democrats

hope to collect from taxpayers with a supercharged IRS would

come from lower- and middle-income earners and small

businesses, according to a new analysis

by the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper. That's in

addition to existing audits of these income levels.

Explanation: Last weekend, all 50 Senate Democrats voted

against an amendment offered by Senate Finance Republican

Leader Mike Crapo (R-ID) that would have protected lower- and

middle-income American taxpayers against new audits by the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Republican Ways and Means Committee release explaining that Senate Democrats voted down an amendment that would prevent increased audits on taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year and House Democrats refuse to take up a bill that would do the same.

[From waysandmeans.house.gov, Aug. 17, 2022]

Democrats Fail To Protect Middle Class From IRS Audits

Democrats voted against guardrails that would have

protected lower- and middle-income taxpayers from more audits

as a result of supercharging the IRS with 87,000 new agents.

Instead, they hope you'll just ``take their word for it''

that the IRS won't target American families who are living

paycheck to paycheck. Various news outlets have circulated

these claims as facts, but the bill text says otherwise,

Reason Magazine's Matt Welch reports.

Democrats claim they won't target lower- and middle- income

earners with their expansion of the IRS by 87,000 agents . .

.

``. . . top Democrats have been busy escalating their

already implausible claims that goosing the IRS enforcement

budget by 69 percent over a decade, hiring 87,000 additional

new staffers at an agency that currently employs 79,000, and

nabbing an estimated extra $124 billion in tax revenue will

miraculously not bring any percentage increase in audits

performed on Americans earning less than $400,000 a year.''

. . . but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

predicts boosted IRS funding will increase audits for all

taxpayers . . .

``CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel estimated that boosting

IRS funding by $80 billion would increase tax revenues by

$200 billion (the number would later rise to $207 billion,

before settling at $204 billion), adding that `the proposal .

. . would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years

ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers' (italics mine),

though `higher-income taxpayers would face the largest

increase.' ''

. . . and Democrats voted against Republican amendments

preventing lower income earners from being targeted by higher

audits.

``In the final IRA bill, in fact, $45.7 billion is

earmarked for `enforcement,' and $25.3 billion goes to

`operations support.' There is no reason to conclude from

those dollar amounts that the number of resulting audits will

be less than originally projected.''

Many ``fact checkers'' have refused to verify claims by

Democrats:

``As Liz Wolfe has reported repeatedly in the pages of

Reason, none of these assurances live in the text of the

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) itself. One Republican

amendment ``to prevent the use of additional Internal Revenue

Service Funds from being used for audits of taxpayers with

taxable incomes below $400,000'' was voted down on party

lines. You'll just have to take Democrats' word for it.

``That's good enough for many news organizations, who have

been coughing up ``fact-checks'' aimed not at the

demonstrable veracity of White House promises about

significant legislation impacting literally all adult

Americans but at the hyperbole of Republican criticism

thereof.''

Democrats will raise audits on the middle class under the

guise of going after the tax gap.

``The fact remains that you can't close the tax gap without

greater enforcement on the poor and that enforcement on the

poor is considerably less expensive.''

``It is true that Yellen has freshly directed the IRS to

not increase the audit rate of under-$400,000s. And it's also

true that there's no structural enforcement mechanism

preventing the agency from continuing to go after low-hanging

fruit to meet revenue targets.''

Only $3.2 billion of the $80 billion total goes towards

improving services for taxpayers.

``. . . just $3.2 billion of the $80 billion is earmarked

for customer service, producing a mere 9 percent increase

over the previous baseline. If the agency is bad at answering

phone calls--and it's bad at answering phone calls--a 9

percent bump seems inadequate to the task.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I point out that the Biden administration is not giving us all the information. Secretary Yellen said that the IRS will not raise audit rates for taxpayers making less than $400,000 ``relative to historic levels.'' What does ``historic levels'' really mean?

I include in the Record a CBO blog post from 2021 examining the Biden administration's $80 billion proposal and stating that it would ``return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago'' and that ``the rate would rise for all taxpayers.''

[From the CBO Blog, Sept. 2, 2021]

The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS

(By Phill Swagel)

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office published An

Analysis of Certain Proposals in the President's 2022 Budget.

Since then, CBO has completed its analysis of another

proposal in the President's budget, an increase in spending

for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) enforcement

activities. CBO estimates that portions of the

Administration's proposal to increase funding for the IRS by

$80 billion over the 2022-2031 period would increase revenues

by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years. That

estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from

portions of the proposal that involve new information-

reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code;

those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation (JCT).

the proposal

The Administration proposes funding for the IRS that is $80

billion greater over 10 years than the amounts in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections (which reflect the assumption that

current laws generally do not change). Two types of funding

would be provided: discretionary appropriations, which would

mainly be used for enforcement activities; and mandatory

funding, which would be used for a variety of activities (not

only enforcement but also operations support, business-

systems modernization, and taxpayer services).

Spending would increase in each year between 2021 and 2031,

though the highest growth would occur in the first few years.

By 2031, CBO projects, the proposal would make the IRS's

budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections and would more than double the

IRS's staffing. Of the $80 billion, CBO estimates, about $60

billion would be for enforcement and related operations

support.

The Administration also proposes that financial

institutions increase their reporting about account inflows

and outflows. Part of the increased funding would support the

implementation of a new information-reporting system to be

used by those institutions. The resulting effects on revenues

are estimated by JCT and are not included in CBO's estimate

of an approximately $200 billion increase.

how cbo estimates the effect on revenues of increased irs funding

CBO's estimate of revenues is based on the IRS's projected

returns on investment (ROIs) for spending on new enforcement

initiatives. The IRS estimates those ROIs by calculating the

expected revenues that would be raised from taxes, interest,

and penalties as a result of the new initiatives and dividing

them by their additional cost. (The agency has provided ROIs

over the past five years as part of its budget

justification.) The IRS's ROIs ramp up over three years as

staff become trained and fully productive, arrive at the peak

level, and then stay there. In recent years, peak ROIs have

ranged from 5 to 9. That is, a $1 increase in spending on the

IRS's enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased

revenues.

CBO adjusts the ROIs so that they better reflect the

marginal return on additional spending. First, CBO expects

the IRS to prioritize the enforcement activities that it

thinks will have the highest average return; additional

enforcement spending would therefore have lower returns than

previous spending. Second, CBO expects taxpayers to adapt to

the IRS's enforcement activities and adopt new ways of

evading detection, so an enforcement activity may have a

lower return in later years. Finally, the productivity of the

IRS's enforcement activities will also depend on the IRS's

other capabilities. For example, modernized information

technology that stored all of a taxpayer's information in

digital form could increase the productivity of examiners

(the employees who detect taxpayers' noncompliance).

CBO's estimate of revenues also accounts for the timing of

collections resulting from enforcement activity by new hires.

Taxes are assessed at the end of an audit; if taxpayers

disagree with the assessment, they can appeal and continue to

litigate. The length of each step depends on the complexity

of the case. CBO estimates that an audit of medium complexity

would take 24 months to complete. That time, combined with

the expected training time for an experienced new hire,

suggests that the IRS would begin to collect revenues 30

months after the new hire joined the agency. (The timing

would be longer when cases were more complex or when the

taxpayer did not agree to the assessment and appealed.)

what is incorporated into cbo's estimate

CBO's estimate of the change in revenues is relative to the

amount of revenues collected under current law (which is

reflected in CBO's baseline budget projections). Under

guidelines agreed to by the legislative and executive

branches, this change in revenues typically would not be

included in a cost estimate for legislation that brought

about the change, but it would be reflected in CBO's baseline

budget projections once the legislation was enacted. CBO's

estimate reflects the assumption that the proposed

increase in funding would follow the proposed expansion of

information reporting. Expanded information reporting

might allow the IRS to better target potentially

noncompliant taxpayers; it might also prompt taxpayers to

file more accurate tax returns. It might have a positive

effect on revenues collected, but it might also reduce the

ROIs from enforcement activities, because if returns are

more accurate, there will be less noncompliance to audit.

In CBO's and JCT's judgment, those effects roughly offset

each other, on net, resulting in a small positive effect

on ROIs.

CBO's estimate includes ``direct revenues'' and ``protected

revenues.'' Direct revenues are generated from the IRS's

auditing and collection efforts. Protected revenues result

when the IRS prevents a taxpayer from recouping previously

assessed and paid taxes--for example, when the IRS prevents

fraudulent refunds or disallows claims in taxpayers' amended

returns.

The estimate reflects CBO's expectation that the increased

enforcement activities would change the voluntary compliance

rate--that is, the share of taxes owed that are paid

voluntarily and on time--only modestly. The magnitude of that

effect is highly uncertain, however, and the empirical

evidence about the effects of audits on taxpayers' behavior

is inconclusive. Research about such deterrence finds varying

responses, depending on the type of taxpayer. People

generally increase their reported income in the years

following an audit, but people with higher income generally

do not, and neither do corporations. (For more discussion,

see Box 1 in CBO's July 2020 report Trends in the Internal

Revenue Service's Funding and Enforcement.)

how the current analysis differs from previous analyses

In that July 2020 report, CBO estimated that a $40 billion

increase in enforcement funding would raise $103 billion (for

a net effect of $63 billion). The methods used for this

estimate differ in several ways from the methods used for

that one.

First, CBO used updated ROIs that incorporated the IRS's

most recent estimates of the return on enforcement

activities. CBO then adjusted the ROIs to reflect both direct

revenues and protected revenues, increasing the peak ROI from

6.4 to 7.1.

Second, CBO's current methods allow for positive

interaction between enforcement spending and other IRS

funding. That is, CBO accounts for ways in which increased

capabilities, such as more digitization of

taxpayers' information and greater visibility of income

flows, can increase the productivity of enforcement

activities.

Third, this analysis reflects a longer time frame for

receiving enforcement revenues because of the complexity of

audits associated with high-wealth individuals, large

corporations, and partnerships. Taxpayers with greater

resources may be more likely to appeal assessments or to

litigate their disputes in the U.S. Tax Court, delaying the

receipt of assessed taxes. As a result, revenues from some

audits will not be received until later than CBO estimated in

its July 2020 analysis.

sources of uncertainty

The change in revenues resulting from an increase in the

IRS's funding could be different from CBO's estimate. It

depends on the IRS's ability to hire experienced candidates,

changes in voluntary compliance, and the interaction of

enforcement funding with the IRS's other capabilities.

The IRS intends to hire mid- and senior-level people with

private-sector experience who will not require a great deal

of training to become productive. But it might not be able to

hire its desired mix of candidates. If it hired less

experienced candidates, it would have to spend more resources

training them. Not only would they take longer to become

productive, but current staff members would have to devote

more time to training them. A related source of uncertainty

in CBO's estimate is attrition: If it proved higher than

expected, personnel would have fewer years at full

productivity.

An increase in the IRS's funding could signal that the

agency was more capable of detecting noncompliance, thus

increasing voluntary compliance and revenues. However, if

there were fewer noncompliant taxpayers to audit, the ROIs

from the IRS's enforcement activities would drop, and the

direct revenues from increased enforcement would be lower

than CBO estimated.

Finally, it is unclear how much the greater information

reporting or the increased IRS spending in areas other than

enforcement (such as technology) could improve examiners'

productivity. Greater nonenforcement spending might increase

overall revenues but decrease ROIs--for example, if improved

services for taxpayers enabled those taxpayers to more

accurately determine their tax liability, reducing the pool

of noncompliant taxpayers to audit.

effects on taxpayers

The proposed increase in spending on the IRS's enforcement

activities would result in higher audit rates than those

underlying CBO's baseline budget projections. Between 2010

and 2018, the audit rate for higher-income taxpayers fell,

while the audit rate for lower-income taxpayers remained

fairly stable. In CBO's baseline projections, the overall

audit rate declines, resulting in lower audit rates for both

higher-income and lower-income taxpayers. The proposal, by

contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10

years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-

income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In

addition, the Administration's policies would focus

additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at

high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.

CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax

compliance would be improved, and more households would meet

their obligation under the law.

Higher audit rates would probably also result in some

audits of taxpayers who would later be determined not to owe

additional taxes. However, the Administration's proposal for

more information reporting, as well as additional spending on

IRS technology, might reduce the burden on compliant

taxpayers by allowing the IRS to better target noncompliant

ones and to reduce the number of audits that resulted in no

change in tax assessment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record a CBO post from 2021 examining the Biden administration's $80 billion proposal and stating that ``CBO projects the proposal would make the IRS' budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July 2021 baseline projections and would more than double the IRS' staffing.''

[From CBO Blog, Sept. 2, 2021]

The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS

(By Phil Swagel)

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office published An

Analysis of Certain Proposals in the President's 2022 Budget.

Since then, CBO has completed its analysis of another

proposal in the President's budget, an increase in spending

for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) enforcement

activities. CBO estimates that portions of the

Administration's proposal to increase funding for the IRS by

$80 billion over the 2022-2031 period would increase revenues

by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years. That

estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from

portions of the proposal that involve new information-

reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code;

those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation (JCT).

The Proposal

The Administration proposes funding for the IRS that is $80

billion greater over 10 years than the amounts in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections (which reflect the assumption that

current laws generally do not change). Two types of funding

would be provided: discretionary appropriations, which would

mainly be used for enforcement activities; and mandatory

funding, which would be used for a variety of activities (not

only enforcement but also operations support, business-

systems modernization, and taxpayer services).

Spending would increase in each year between 2021 and 2031,

though the highest growth would occur in the first few years.

By 2031, CBO projects, the proposal would make the IRS's

budget more than 90 percent larger than it is in CBO's July

2021 baseline projections and would more than double the

IRS's staffing. Of the $80 billion, CBO estimates, about $60

billion would be for enforcement and related operations

support.

The Administration also proposes that financial

institutions increase their reporting about account inflows

and outflows. Part of the increased funding would support the

implementation of a new information-reporting system to be

used by those institutions. The resulting effects on revenues

are estimated by JCT and are not included in CBO's estimate

of an approximately $200 billion increase.

How CBO Estimates the Effect on Revenues of Increased IRS Funding

CBO's estimate of revenues is based on the IRS's projected

returns on investment (ROls) for spending on new enforcement

initiatives. The IRS estimates those ROls by calculating the

expected revenues that would be raised from taxes, interest,

and penalties as a result of the new initiatives and dividing

them by their additional cost. (The agency has provided ROls

over the past five years as part of its budget

justification.) The IRS's ROls ramp up over three years as

staff become trained and fully productive, arrive at the peak

level, and then stay there. In recent years, peak ROls have

ranged from 5 to 9. That is, a $1 increase in spending on the

IRS's enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased

revenues.

CBO adjusts the ROls so that they better reflect the

marginal return on additional spending. First, CBO expects

the IRS to prioritize the enforcement activities that it

thinks will have the highest average return; additional

enforcement spending would therefore have lower returns than

previous spending. Second, CBO expects taxpayers to adapt to

the IRS's enforcement activities and adopt new ways of

evading detection, so an enforcement activity may have a

lower return in later years. Finally, the productivity of the

IRS's enforcement activities will also depend on the IRS's

other capabilities. For example, modernized information

technology that stored all of a taxpayer's information in

digital form could increase the productivity of examiners

(the employees who detect taxpayers' noncompliance).

CBO's estimate of revenues also accounts for the timing of

collections resulting from enforcement activity by new hires.

Taxes are assessed at the end of an audit; if taxpayers

disagree with the assessment, they can appeal and continue to

litigate. The length of each step depends on the complexity

of the case. CBO estimates that an audit of medium complexity

would take 24 months to complete. That time, combined with

the expected training time for an experienced new hire,

suggests that the IRS would begin to collect revenues 30

months after the new hire joined the agency. (The timing

would be longer when cases were more complex or when the

taxpayer did not agree to the assessment and appealed.)

What Is Incorporated Into CBO's Estimate. CBO's estimate of

the change in revenues is relative to the amount of revenues

collected under current law (which is reflected in CBO's

baseline budget projections). Under guidelines agreed to by

the legislative and executive branches, this change in

revenues typically would not be included in a cost estimate

for legislation that brought about the change, but it would

be reflected in CBO's baseline budget projections once the

legislation was enacted.

CBO's estimate reflects the assumption that the proposed

increase in funding would follow the proposed expansion of

information reporting. Expanded information reporting might

allow the IRS to better target potentially noncompliant

taxpayers; it might also prompt taxpayers to file more

accurate tax returns. It might have a positive effect on

revenues collected, but it might also reduce the ROIs from

enforcement activities, because if returns are more accurate,

there will be less noncompliance to audit. In CBO's and JCT's

judgment, those effects roughly offset each other, on net,

resulting in a small positive effect on ROIs.

CBO's estimate includes ``direct revenues'' and ``protected

revenues.'' Direct revenues are generated from the IRS's

auditing and collection efforts. Protected revenues result

when the IRS prevents a taxpayer from recouping previously

assessed and paid taxes-

for example, when the IRS prevents fraudulent refunds or

disallows claims in taxpayers' amended returns.

The estimate reflects CBO's expectation that the increased

enforcement activities would change the voluntary compliance

rate--that is, the share of taxes owed that are paid

voluntarily and on time-only modestly. The magnitude of that

effect is highly uncertain, however, and the empirical

evidence about the effects of audits on taxpayers' behavior

is inconclusive. Research about such deterrence finds varying

responses, depending on the type of taxpayer. People

generally increase their reported income in the years

following an audit, but people with higher income generally

do not, and neither do corporations. (For more discussion,

see Box 1 in CBO's July 2020 report Trends in the Internal

Revenue Service's Funding and Enforcement.)

How the Current Analysis Differs From Previous Analyses. In

that July 2020 report, CBO estimated that a $40 billion

increase in enforcement funding would raise $103 billion (for

a net effect of $63 billion). The methods used for this

estimate differ in several ways from the methods used for

that one.

First, CBO used updated ROIs that incorporated the IRS's

most recent estimates of the return on enforcement

activities. CBO then adjusted the ROIs to reflect both direct

revenues and protected revenues, increasing the peak ROI from

6.4 to 7.1.

Second, CBO's current methods allow for positive

interaction between enforcement spending and other IRS

funding. That is, CBO accounts for ways in which increased

capabilities, such as more digitization of taxpayers'

information and greater visibility of income flows, can

increase the productivity of enforcement activities.

Third, this analysis reflects a longer time frame for

receiving enforcement revenues because of the complexity of

audits associated with high-wealth individuals, large

corporations, and partnerships. Taxpayers with greater

resources may be more likely to appeal assessments or to

litigate their disputes in the U.S. Tax Court, delaying the

receipt of assessed taxes. As a result, revenues from some

audits will not be received until later than CBO estimated in

its July 2020 analysis.

Sources of Uncertainty. The change in revenues resulting

from an increase in the IRS's funding could be different from

CBO's estimate. It depends on the IRS's ability to hire

experienced candidates, changes in voluntary compliance, and

the interaction of enforcement funding with the IRS's other

capabilities.

The IRS intends to hire mid- and senior-level people with

private sector experience who will not require a great deal

of training to become productive. But it might not be able to

hire its desired mix of candidates. If it hired less

experienced candidates, it would have to spend more resources

training them. Not only would they take longer to become

productive, but current staff members would have to devote

more time to training them. A related source of uncertainty

in CBO's estimate is attrition: If it proved higher than

expected, personnel would have fewer years at full

productivity.

An increase in the IRS's funding could signal that the

agency was more capable of detecting noncompliance, thus

increasing voluntary compliance and revenues. However, if

there were fewer noncompliant taxpayers to audit, the ROIs

from the IRS's enforcement activities would drop, and the

direct revenues from increased enforcement would be lower

than CBO estimated.

Finally, it is unclear how much the greater information

reporting or the increased IRS spending in areas other than

enforcement (such as technology) could improve examiners'

productivity. Greater nonenforcement spending might increase

overall revenues but decrease ROIs--for example, if improved

services for taxpayers enabled those taxpayers to more

accurately determine their tax liability, reducing the pool

of noncompliant taxpayers to audit.

Effects on Taxpayers

The proposed increase in spending on the IRS's enforcement

activities would result in higher audit rates than those

underlying CBO's baseline budget projections. Between 2010

and 2018, the audit rate for higher-income taxpayers fell,

while the audit rate for lower-income taxpayers remained

fairly stable. In CBO's baseline projections, the overall

audit rate declines, resulting in lower audit rates for both

higher-income and lower-income taxpayers. The proposal, by

contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10

years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-

income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In

addition, the Administration's policies would focus

additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at

high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.

CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax

compliance would be improved, and more households would meet

their obligation under the law.

Higher audit rates would probably also result in some

audits of taxpayers who would later be determined not to owe

additional taxes. However, the Administration's proposal for

more information reporting, as well as additional spending on

IRS technology, might reduce the burden on compliant

taxpayers by allowing the IRS to better target noncom pliant

ones and to reduce the number of audits that resulted in no

change in tax assessment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with concern about some of these points that have been raised. I think we have heard it from both sides that the IRS is not answering the phone like they should, to actually serve the taxpayers, taxpayers who want to do the right thing.

It is conceivable that there would be taxpayers overpaying as well because of the complexity in the tax code, and yet the record shows over the years that there have been innocent taxpayers, taxpayers who already paid what they owed, who were still audited and were considered guilty until they proved themselves innocent. To me, that is a huge problem.

We just heard that there is concern about the debt, and yet the answer is just more government employees, in fact, more than double of what the current number of employees are. I have huge concerns about that, and that is why I think we need to vote for this bill, get the President and the Senate to agree to this, and work together to focus on customer service issues that everyone knows are a concern at the

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation that we have had here. I think there is fundamental disagreement on what the real solutions need to be; although, I think there is agreement that the current customer service at the IRS is significantly underperforming.

Now, in 2019, in a bipartisan fashion, we passed the Taxpayer First Act. In fact, our highly respected colleague, the late Representative John Lewis, led the way on that, as well. This was about customer service and reform at the IRS. Were there benefits from that? COVID got in the way.

I think that does actually beg the question of what have been the impacts of COVID on customer service at the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that when there are resources afforded the IRS, they are just not used the way they can and should be, especially as it relates to customer service and the honest taxpayers that my colleague from Massachusetts references. We want to do everything we can when the American people are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, and abiding by the law. Yet they would still be exposed to having to prove themselves again after they already did with voluntary tax compliance. But here comes an audit. I vividly recall the fact that in the 1990s, the IRS, as an agency, overstepped.

In fact, I believe it was President Clinton that even pulled back the IRS somewhat because they were going after law-abiding, taxpaying Americans who already did everything they were supposed to do.

That certainly establishes my concern about why we would see legislation passed last year that would pretty randomly put forward funding that I think will ultimately get in the way of these taxpaying Americans who, like I said, already did everything they were supposed to do, but yet they have to incur the expense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill for good public policy, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 23. My friend from Nebraska suggested a number of issues that we intend to challenge during the course of the next half hour, based upon the facts.

This is theater tonight, Mr. Speaker. If we didn't get enough of the entertainment factor last week, we are going to proceed with it again this evening.

Mr. Speaker, 87,000 IRS agents, let me debunk that right away. There are regular retirements of up to 8,000 a year, we are replacing them.

How about the methodology of a computer upgrade, an investment in technology, more modeling, or should we have an IRS that operates the way Southwest Airlines did last week--to the dismay of the American family.

This is a messaging bill, Mr. Speaker. The message that they choose to send--and let everybody understand this, the first bill that they have submitted, according to the Congressional Budget Office, adds $114 billion to the Federal deficit. Legislation number one.

They don't want a fairer tax administration. They think it is bad for some of their supporters. You know what they're attempting to do tonight is bad for middle-class families, it is bad for small businesses, who are then asked to pay more when the people at the top don't pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Charles Rossotti, the former IRS Commissioner.

March 1, 2020.

Hon. Richard Neal,

Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Neal: I was IRS commissioner from 1997 to

2002. At the time, Congress passed a major bill that produced

some important, long-lasting reforms, including converting

the IRS to electronic filing and improving treatment of

taxpayers.

I believe there is a major modernization opportunity today

that could efficiently recover a large amount of revenue. It

could gradually shrink the tax gap, while also easing burden

for millions of taxpayers who interact with the IRS.

I am enclosing my article in Tax Notes, entitled ``Recover

$1.6 Trillion, Modernize Tax Compliance and Assistance,''

which explains this opportunity.

I would be happy to talk further to you or your staff about

this opportunity.

Sincerely,

Charles O. Rossotti,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1997-2002.

Mr. Speaker, he points out in the opening paragraph of a tax notes special. By the way, those of us in the tax world know what tax notes means. He said that last year, this would be 2021, the Federal Government failed to collect $574 billion of taxes that were legally due but not paid. That is equal to more than most of the Federal deficit. If they want to reduce the Federal tax deficit, we should do a better job with tax compliance, which, after all, is the basis of a representative democracy.

Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of the American people pay their taxes every year on time. Do you know why? Because they get paid in wages and it comes from withholding taxes, that is what it is about.

The American people are wise to what is being presented here tonight. We live in a two-tier tax system. Wage earners follow the rules. Wealthy billionaires, they get to skirt their responsibilities. That is what we are being asked to vote on tonight.

IRS funding has been stagnant, staffing levels have dropped. Have you tried getting an IRS office on the phone?

How many times will we continue to let those at the top get away without paying their share?

We lose out on--just think of it again--almost $600 billion a year in unpaid taxes. It is very sophisticated tax planning that is done by high-priced attorneys and CPAs. It is estimated that this could be up to $7 trillion because we score items over the course of 10 years.

What might this funding pay for?

How about Social Security? How about Medicare? How about a strong military? How about a child tax credit that could be expanded? How about universal paid family and medical leave? How about bringing down healthcare costs?

The audit rates amongst millionaires have declined by 70 percent since 2010. Let me repeat that for anybody who didn't get that. The audit rate for millionaires has declined by 70 percent since 2010.

Low-income workers who receive the earned income tax credit, they are audited more now than taxpayers who are making over $1 million a year.

All we are asking for is fairness in the distribution of the responsibilities as to how we pay for government. There is a different set of standards across the land now. And to point that out to you once again--what is our commitment to America?

It should be based on a fair tax system that collects what is due from those who ought to be paying.

The former IRS Commissioner, a Republican, Charles Rettig, he pointed out that he was fully in support of the legislation that we were offering because the IRS is continually out-maneuvered and out-gunned by sophisticated efforts from tax lawyers and CPAs.

We have to put American families over the politics in the distribution of theater that we are witnessing tonight. See through this legislation and vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who intends to talk about the tax gap.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of the Administration Policy opposing H.R. 23.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 23--To rescind certain balances made available to the Internal

Revenue Service

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 23, to rescind

certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS). The bill would rescind funding passed in the

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that enables the IRS to crack

down on large corporations and high-income people who cheat

on their taxes and evade the taxes that they owe under the

law.

This reckless bill would increase the deficit by nearly

$115 billion over 10 years per an estimate by the

Congressional Budget Office by enabling wealthy tax cheats to

engage in additional tax fraud and avoidance. To be clear,

the Treasury Secretary has already directed that none of the

additional IRS resources be used to increase audit rates

relative to historical levels for small businesses or

households with incomes below $400,000. Far from protecting

middle-class families or small businesses, H.R. 23 protects

wealthy tax cheats at the expense of honest, middle-class

taxpayers. Each year the top one percent hides about 20

percent of their income from the government so they can get

away with not paying any tax on it. That means that working

people--who report 99 percent of their income to the IRS--pay

a larger share of collected taxes than they should. Not only

does it shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-

class, it would also make it harder for middle-class families

and small businesses to get timely tax refunds and other

important services from the IRS, by rescinding billions in

funding for IRS information technology and operations.

With their first economic legislation of the new Congress,

House Republicans are making clear that their top economic

priority is to allow the rich and multi-billion dollar

corporations to skip out on their taxes, while making life

harder for ordinary, middle-class families that pay the taxes

they owe. That's their agenda; not lowering costs or cutting

taxes for hard working Americans--as President Biden has

consistently advocated.

If the President were presented with H.R. 23--or any other

bill that enables the wealthiest Americans and largest

corporations to cheat on their taxes, while honest and hard-

working Americans are left to pay the tab--he would veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CBO score for this bill that is showing that it will add $114 billion to the Federal deficit over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an op-ed piece from the former IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, a Republican, titled: ``IRS sets the record straight: We're going after tax evaders, not honest Americans.''

[From Yahoo! Finance, Aug. 25, 2022]

IRS Sets the Record Straight: We're Going After Tax Evaders, Not Honest

Americans: Op-Ed

(By Charles P. Rettig)

As the nation's tax administrator, the IRS plays a unique

role in our nation. It can be a difficult job. After all,

does anyone really like paying taxes? Of course not. But

they're essential to fund the roads we drive on, the schools

our children attend, support our military and so much more.

Unfortunately, given the nature of this work and historical

stereotypes, the IRS is often perceived as an easy target for

mischaracterizations of what

IRS employees do--and that's exactly what's happened in

recent weeks.

The recent debate over providing badly needed funding to

the IRS is filled with outright false suggestions about what

the agency and our hardworking employees do--as well as how

the additional resources will be handled.

The bottom line is this: These resources are absolutely not

about increasing audit scrutiny on small business or middle-

income Americans. The investment of these important resources

is designed to support honest, compliant taxpayers. Our

investment is designed around a Treasury directive that audit

rates do not rise relative to recent years for households

making under $400,000.

We all want a fair and impartial system where everyone

contributes their fair share, no more and certainly no less.

A robust, visible tax enforcement effort focused on high-end

tax evaders and those supporting them is a priority.

Underpayments by tax evaders shift the burden of operating

our great country onto honest, hard-working Americans who

follow the law. With this new law, honest taxpayers will see

badly needed, meaningful service improvements at the IRS. The

IRS should be able to answer the phones and process

information--including tax returns--in a timely manner.

Enhanced IT systems and taxpayer services will mean that

honest taxpayers will be better able to comply with the tax

laws, ultimately resulting in a lower--yes, lower--likelihood

of being audited and a reduced burden on them.

To set the record straight on this important legislation

and dispel any lingering misperceptions, here are some key

facts to keep in mind:

False Statement: The IRS is hiring 87,000 armed special

agents to harass taxpayers.

Reality: Absolutely false. The majority of new hires the

IRS makes will be those who answer the phones, work on

processing individual tax returns or go after high-end

taxpayers or corporations who are avoiding their taxes. Less

than 1 percent of new hires will be in our IRS Criminal

Investigation (IRS-CI) area, which currently has a total of

about 2,100 special agents and is currently hiring about 300

more.

These CI special agents investigate criminal tax violations

typically related to money laundering, Bank Secrecy, National

Security and National Defense matters. They have been

involved in dismantling terrorist financing efforts and

criminal cartels as well as eliminating child exploitation

operations in the Dark Net that led to the arrests of

hundreds of people throughout the world. They do not perform

civil tax administrative functions such as audits of tax

returns. They are law enforcement officers, and every

American should be extremely proud they are on our team.

False Statement: All IRS employees--and those being hired

under the new legislation--will carry firearms.

Reality: Again, absolutely false. More than 97 percent of

IRS employees do not carry weapons. This includes key civil-

side enforcement personnel, including revenue agents,

examiners and others involved in audits and compliance work.

Less than 3 percent of IRS employees--expressly limited to

Criminal Investigation special agents--carry firearms. IRS

Criminal Investigation oversees the entirety of the work

related to criminal violations of the tax law and other

financial crimes. This is consistent with other federal law

enforcement agencies.

False Statement: The additional funding will be used to

hire more auditors to ``shake down'' average taxpayers.

Reality: False. Wage-earning taxpayers like firefighters,

construction workers, teachers and police officers are among

the most compliant taxpayers, given that their incomes come

from Forms W-2 and 1099. These resources are absolutely not

about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or

middle-income Americans. Instead, the additional resources

will also be focused on large corporate and high net-worth

taxpayers to enforce laws already on the books that the IRS

does not have enough resources to pursue.

False Statement: The new legislation will be a massive

overnight expansion of the IRS.

Reality: False. This funding--which will be spread over 10

years--will add employees over time as we modernize our

operations with meaningful technological enhancements. In

addition, the IRS has one of the oldest workforces in

government, and staffing has been in a deep decline for many

years. More than 50,000 employees will retire in the next few

years, leaving the foundation of the tax system that the

nation relies on at risk. We've been losing 10,000 employees

a year.

Overall, current IRS staffing is far below historical

norms. In 1992, the IRS had 117,000 employees--38,000 more

than today. Back then, the agency was dealing with fewer

taxpayers; the U.S. population has grown almost 30 percent

since 1992.

False Statement: This new funding will allow overreach by

the IRS, putting agents on every street corner and prying

into people's personal financial lives.

Reality: False. This funding will allow the IRS to better

serve the nation's taxpayers--and ultimately meet the

critical needs of our country. Our employees care and, like

others in government, take an oath to support our country. We

take pride in hiring veterans, people with disabilities and

people from all walks of life and from every corner of our

country. Many of our employees, including myself, are members

of a military family. And all of our employees reflect the

taxpayers we serve.

I am an extremely proud American, a member of a proud

military family, and simply will not accept baseless, harmful

assertions against the interests of our country and the

proud, hard-working employees of the IRS.

Everyone should know this about IRS employees: We care, a

lot, about this country and you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is a much-valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas, my friend. He just pointed out that the people at the bottom are audited more than the people at the top. That is precisely the point that we are attempting to make here during the course of the next few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the former majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate Mr. Smith, incidentally, on his recent elevation to become the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We look forward to a productive session during the next couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I include into the Record a blog post by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities summarizing the fact check that has repeatedly debunked the false claim that we just heard a few seconds ago, that the IRS is going to hire 87,000 new agents immediately.

[From Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 9, 2023]

House GOP's First Bill: A Misleading Gambit To Protect Interests of

Wealthy Tax Cheats

(By Chuck Marr)

House Republicans have announced that their first

legislative priority is to rescind nearly all of the

Inflation Reduction Act's $80 billion in ten-year funding for

the IRS, while repeating falsehoods and inflammatory rhetoric

about how that funding will be used. While the Republicans

have launched a campaign about a false ``army'' of 87,000

agents, the debate should focus on one accurate and alarming

number: the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle

the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in

1954. The decade-long, House Republican-driven budget cuts

have created dysfunction at the IRS, where relatively few

millionaires are now audited. If House Republicans succeed in

rolling back this critically needed funding and maintaining

this dysfunction, the IRS would be woefully understaffed,

hindering its ability to administer the tax code and collect

legally owed taxes--particularly from high-income and high-

wealth taxpayers. On behalf of honest taxpayers, policymakers

should reject the House Republican effort to protect wealthy

tax cheats.

The IRS workforce is composed of civilian public servants,

such as accountants and customer service representatives, who

collect nearly all the federal revenue to fund

our government, from Medicare and Social Security to our

armed forces. Its skilled auditors, also known as revenue

agents, are highly trained to handle sophisticated tax

returns of wealthy people and multinational corporations. All

of these IRS employees perform a core function of government,

are central to the workings of our democracy, and work on

behalf of honest taxpayers.

Republican IRS critics, however, have constructed a

narrative around the IRS workforce becoming an ``army'' of

87,000 ``armed agents'' whose enemies are ``hardworking

American families and small businesses.'' This rhetoric is

false and dangerous.

Fact checkers have repeatedly debunked the 87,000 figure,

which comes from a prior Treasury estimate that it would use

new funding to hire 87,000 total staff over the next ten

years, including IRS employees in all departments, not just

skilled auditors. These are people who answer phones, process

returns, program computers, as well as a fraction--albeit an

important one--who audit complex tax returns.

The House GOP campaign ignores the reality of today's IRS--

which has resulted from the sharp budget cuts that

Republicans have pushed since 2010--as well as the harm that

would flow from rescinding much of the Inflation Reduction

Act's new IRS funding. The upcoming debate needs to cut

through the obfuscation of the House Republican campaign and

focus on honest and pertinent numbers.

Consider, in 2021, the IRS had 8,321 skilled auditors.

That's 40 percent fewer than the agency had in 2010, the year

before House Republicans were in the majority and began

driving the last decade of steep IRS budget cuts.

Moreover, it's 2,284 fewer revenue agents than the IRS had

in 1954--not a typo. The last time the IRS had fewer revenue

agents than it has today was in 1953. Today's economy is

seven times larger than it was in 1953 and our population has

more than doubled since then. Today's tax returns of wealthy

people and large multinationals are more complex and global,

which take more time for auditors to review.

As a result of these budget cuts and fewer skilled

auditors, audit rates have plummeted for wealthy individuals

and large corporations.

For the largest corporations (those with more than $1

billion in assets), the audit rate fell by more than half

between 2010 and 2017. For millionaires, the audit rate fell

by roughly 77 percent over the same period. Preliminary audit

data for 2018 and 2019 suggest that the audit rate may have

declined over 90 percent between 2010 and 2019.

House Republicans want to scare people with their false

claims about how the IRS would use the new resources. But the

reality is that, today, the IRS skilled audit staff is 2,284

smaller than in 1954, only a tiny fraction of millionaires is

audited, and large multinationals can hire large squads of

lawyers to easily overwhelm the resources of the IRS. One

only needs to skim President Trump's tax returns, the

indictment of convicted tax cheat Paul Manafort, and a

ProPublica investigation of how Facebook outgunned the IRS to

grasp the resources necessary to be serious about enforcing

our tax laws and how reckless it would be to keep the number

of skilled auditors at 1950s levels, as the House Republicans

would do.

Honest taxpayers and business owners deserve better. They

deserve an IRS that processes their tax returns and tax

refunds efficiently, answers the phone when they call with

questions, and ensures that the wealthy and profitable

corporations are paying the taxes they legally owe.

A key element of a healthy, functioning democracy is a

transparent tax system that is fairly enforced so that people

and corporations pay what they owe and the well-heeled and

powerful cannot flout their responsibility to pay their

taxes.

Efforts to protect wealthy tax cheats and purposely

undermine the IRS's ability to enforce tax laws are anti-

democratic and should be resoundingly rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a FactCheck.org article confirming that not all of the 87,000 people who will be hired are going to work on enforcement.

[From FactCheck.org, Aug. 18, 2022]

IRS Will Target `High-Income' Tax Evaders with New Funding, Contrary to

Social Media Posts

(By Brea Jones)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who is a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point that we have attempted to make. Customer service is not occurring because the IRS has been cut by 30 percent over the last 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the IRS Commissioner to the House of Representatives confirming that the IRS will not raise audit rates on those making under $400,000 a year.

Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC, August 4, 2022.

Dear Member of the House of Representatives, It has been

the greatest honor of my professional life to spend the last

four years at the helm of the IRS. I am struck each day by

the commitment of dedicated IRS employees to helping American

families. And our employees have done all that without the

tools to do so effectively. For too long, the agency has not

had the resources that it needs to ensure the tax laws are

enforced fairly and that Americans receive the level and

quality of service they deserve. We are the greatest country

in the world, yet the agency that touches more Americans than

any other continually struggles to receive sufficient

resources to fulfill its important mission.

The resources in the reconciliation package will get us

back to historical norms in areas of challenge for the

agency--large corporate and global high-net-worth taxpayers--

as well as new areas like pass-through entities and

multinational taxpayers with international tax issues, where

we need sophisticated, specialized teams in place that are

able to unpack complex structures and identify noncompliance.

These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit

scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans. As

we've been planning, our investment of these enforcement

resources is designed around the Department of the Treasury's

directive that audit rates will not rise relative to recent

years for households making under $400,000. Other resources

will be invested in

employees and IT systems that will allow us to better serve

all taxpayers, including small businesses and middle-income

taxpayers. Enhanced IT systems and taxpayer service will

actually mean that honest taxpayers will be better able to

comply with the tax laws, resulting in a lower likelihood of

being audited and a reduced burden on them.

Large corporate and high-net-worth taxpayers often engage

teams of sophisticated representatives who pursue unsettled

or sometimes questionable interpretations of tax law. The

integrity and fairness of our tax administrative system

relies upon the ability of our agency to maintain a strong,

visible, robust enforcement presence directed to these and

other similarly situated taxpayers when they are

noncompliant. These important efforts also support honest

taxpayers who voluntarily comply with their filing and

reporting requirements.

The IRS has fewer front-line, experienced examiners in the

field than at any time since World War II, and fewer

employees than at any time since the 1970s. Advances in

technology have been helpful but have not kept pace with the

ever-increasing responsibilities and challenges facing the

IRS. As a result, the IRS has for too long been unable to

pursue meaningful, impactful examinations of large corporate

and high-networth taxpayers to ensure they are paying their

fair share. This creates a direct revenue loss from evaders

and lessens the potential to deter others from pursuing a

similar path of noncompliance. Every American should support

a fair and impartial system of tax administration supported

by an appropriately resourced tax administrator. In fact, the

continued success of our country depends, in part, upon the

success of the agency in appropriately, fairly and

impartially enforcing the tax laws and in providing

meaningful, impactful services to every American.

As an extremely proud American, I'm grateful for your

support of the IRS and our dedicated employees. I cannot be

forceful enough in emphasizing that these resources will be

transformative for the agency and for American taxpayers. I

am available to meet with you at your convenience to discuss

the foregoing.

Thank you,

Charles P. Rettig.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Secretary Yellen to the IRS Commissioner, directing the IRS not to use any additional funding to increase audits on small businesses and households earning less than $400,000 a year.

Department of the Treasury,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, August 10, 2022.

Charles P. Rettig,

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC.

Dear Commissioner: The Inflation Reduction Act includes

much-needed funding for the IRS to improve taxpayer service,

modernize outdated technological infrastructure, and increase

equity in the tax system by enforcing the tax laws against

those high-earners, large corporations, and complex

partnerships who today do not pay what they owe.

These crucial investments have been a focus of the Biden

Administration since the President's first day in office, and

I was heartened to see the legislation pass the Senate this

weekend.

Notwithstanding the changes that arose because of

Republican challenges during the Byrd process, I write today

to confirm the commitment that has been a guiding precept of

the planning that you and your team are undertaking: that

audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for

households making under $400,000 annually.

Specifically, I direct that any additional resources--

including any new personnel or auditors that are hired--shall

not be used to increase the share of small business or

households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited

relative to historical levels. This means that, contrary to

the misinformation from opponents of this legislation, small

business or households earning $400,000 per year or less will

not see an increase in the chances that they are audited.

Instead, enforcement resources will focus on high-end

noncompliance. There, sustained, multiyear funding is so

critical to the agency's ability to make the investments

needed to pursue a robust attack on the tax gap by targeting

crucial challenges. like large corporations, high-net-worth

individuals and complex pass-throughs, where today the IRS

has resources to initiate just 7,500 audits annually out of

more than 4 million returns received.

This is challenging work that requires a team of

sophisticated revenue agents in place to spend thousands of

hours poring over complicated returns, and it is also work

that has huge revenue potential: indeed, an additional hour

auditing someone making more than $5 million annually

generates an estimated $4,500 of additional taxes collected.

This is essential work that l know the IRS is eager to

undertake.

For regular taxpayers, as you emphasized last week, the

result of this resource infusion will be a lower likelihood

of audit by an agency that has the data and technological

infrastructure in place to target enforcement resources where

they belong--on the high end of the income distribution,

where the top 1 percent alone is estimated to not be paying

$160 billion in owed taxes each year. That's important as a

matter of revenue-raising, but it's also essential as a

matter of fairness.

Crucially, these resources will support a much-needed

upgrade of technology that is decades out-of-date, and an in

vestment in taxpayer service so that the IRS is finally able

to communicate with taxpayers in an efficient, timely manner.

I look forward to working with you on creating new digital

tools to allow taxpayers to get information from the IRS

instantaneously and on improving taxpayer service, so the

agency is well-equipped to answer calls when they come in.

This historic investment in our tax system will accomplish

two critical objectives. It will raise substantial revenue to

address the deficit; and it will create a fairer system,

where those at the top who do not today comply with their tax

obligations find it far less easy to do so, and where all

taxpayers receive the service from the IRS that they deserve,

and that your dedicated workforce is eager to deliver. The

importance of the work ahead cannot be overstated.

Sincerely,

Janet L. Yellen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a very capable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is sure to offer clarity to this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a very capable Member from Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), an individual whose knowledge of the economic system in America is unsurpassed.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge that was offered by the gentlewoman from California is as simple as this: We are weaponizing billionaires not to pay their fair share. That is what is happening.

What we are asking here is the simplicity of allowing people at the very top to pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a capable and valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a very capable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a very capable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a very successful businessman and entrepreneur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), a very distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think part of that new recruiting class at the IRS is going to simply answer the phones. That would be helpful, a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), a CPA who really knows something about compliance.

Mr. Speaker, a reminder that the 87,000 is over 10 years. The $80 billion is over 10 years. That is $8 billion a year for replacement of those who retire, who leave the service of the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), another very capable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez), not only a very capable member of the committee but, last week, during those 4 days here of utter chaos, he carried that child around this Chamber. During those 4 days, I think the child grew by 2 inches. That is how long we were there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is a CPA, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, with the Presidential audit system, Joe Biden overpaid his taxes. I hope the Record will reflect that, that the Democratic President overpaid his taxes, and the IRS wisely made sure that he had the proper refund.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the longest serving woman in the history of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an edifying debate. But as Harry Truman noted, let's just talk about the facts. Let's debunk the argument that we are hiring 87,000 armed IRS agents to go knocking on doors in the middle of the night.

This is a substantial investment in technology. This is a substantial investment in customer service. Yes, the $80 billion is over 10 years. That is $8 billion a year to improve customer service. That is what we are talking about.

At least 8,000 agents retire from the IRS every year. We are simply replacing them. You know, in our school systems back home, when 200 teachers retire, we replace 200 teachers. That is what we are doing here with the IRS.

They make this preposterous argument that all of a sudden, next week, 87,000 armed--because you always have to use the language that is incendiary enough to get people worked up around here--that 87,000 armed agents in the dark of night will be hounding innocent taxpayers, despite what Janet Yellen said about no taxpayer making under $400,000 a year is going to be targeted.

Mr. Rossotti, the former IRS commissioner, not me, said at least $574 billion a year goes uncollected. He is a Democrat. A Republican IRS commissioner, Mr. Rettig, who we worked with, said it might be a trillion dollars a year that goes uncollected, a Donald Trump appointee, who stated that and raised that issue a number of times in front of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Let me make a point that I raised earlier. Tax compliance in a representative democracy is a fundamental commitment to civilization and first-class services.

So by not collecting this revenue, are we going to say down the road, well, maybe we will cut Social Security; maybe we will cut Medicare; maybe we will cut Medicaid; or maybe we will cut the American military.

Now, we all know that in this discussion that the facts are very clear here. They have been upset with the IRS for a long period of time. We all remember the Lois Lerner episode, even though the facts in that case pointed out that the advocates on the right and the left were audited at the same rate. That is a fact.

So as we close this argument out, let's stand up for the honest taxpayers in America and make sure that the IRS that currently cracks down on the EITC will be able to actually address some of the complexities of modern tax law, which we all agree, by the way, the system is far too complex, but I have been through that argument many times here, as well.

This fear-mongering that you are hearing tonight about upgrading the technology and software investments at the IRS for the purposes of modeling for better tax compliance is just that. It is fear-mongering.

All we want is a set of rules that is applicable to all as it relates to tax collection. This is not anything other than simply suggesting that there is a fairness that is applied to the Internal Revenue Service, so that they might address and make sure that those at the very top are complying with the same laws we ask the wage earners through withholding to address every single day.

Thanks for a spirited debate, Mr. Speaker, and to our friends on the other side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

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

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules and the rules package.

In particular, I support the Women's Health Protection Act so women seeking reproductive rights will not be hunted down by bounty hunters.

As well, I am opposed to this rule because of the creation of a potential committee that, in fact, threatens our safety, security, and freedom. It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, all for the extreme MAGA Republican political activities.

This does nothing to solve the actual problems facing the American people and even includes a possibility of defunding police.

Finally, I am glad that the last Congress indicated that when a million Americans died, for continuity of government, we had proxy voting. They wanted to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the underlying rules and the rules package. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, Adopting the Rules of the 118th Congress. Instead of building on the extraordinary work done by House Democrats in the 117th Congress, Republicans are choosing to lead off this term with legislation that attacks women's health freedoms, make it easier for companies to pollute without consequence, and hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected.

This problematic Rules package is the product of non-transparent negotiations, backroom deals and promises that were made to appease the demands made by extremist members of the Republican Party to get them to vote or in some cases vote present for Speaker of the House.

Last week's catastrophic Speaker's election showed Americans how disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient the Republican leadership and Caucus can be.

Last week's chaos showed the American people how Republicans plan to govern for the next two years. This body will be ill managed, less transparent, slow moving, and will put forth legislation that will attack our freedoms and undermine our Nation's values.

Concessions made by Republican leadership last week will have devastating effects on this institution. The passage of this Rules package will pave the way for:

Any member to file a ``motion to vacate the chair,'' effectively holding the Speaker hostage;

Extreme right-wing members on key committees;

Putting an end to the possibility of Congressional staff unionization;

Reinstating the Holman Rules so Republicans can target civil servants who challenge them; and

Shut down criminal investigations into the previous president.

This problematic rule is creating more turmoil in the Republican ranks as members wrestle with the image of witnessing the Speaker being coerced into agreeing to give a small faction of the Republican Conference treats to appease them--including concessions to individual members for votes he needed to become Speaker.

It is not inconceivable that Republican members of the conference must show they are not being bullied into voting for this Rules bill.

The most problematic aspect of the rule is that it does not spell out what the Speaker agreed to give to his opponents so that the Congress and the American people know what the Speakership actually cost them.

This is the People's House--not the Republican or Democratic House-- any bargaining should be focused on the needs of the American people-- they must come first.

Throughout the last election cycle, Republicans campaigned on addressing inflation and lowering the cost of living for millions of Americans.

Ironically, the first bill they are introducing repays the wealthy donors that got them their majority through dark money contributions by making it easier for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to cheat on their taxes.

We all may have varying beliefs about taxes, but we as Americans know that nothing in this life is free and that in order for our Nation to be a beacon of freedom we must have a strong defense, public assistance programs to help those in need, an education system that prepares young minds to lead, retirement programs that provided for our elder and disabled, and a healthcare system that cares for all in need of healthcare.

Passage of the rule will pave the way for Republicans to continue their assault on a woman's bodily autonomy and impede on medical decisions that should remain between medical professionals and their patient.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not criminalize abortion nationwide, make no mistake, that is their end goal, and the passage of this bill will get them one step closer to their sick idea of stripping all women of their rights.

There are concerns that language in the House Rules package would eliminate rules requiring spending offsets for bills that sell or transfer federal public lands and waters.

This will result in a loss of public access enjoyed by the 70 million American hunters and anglers that help support the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy in the United States. Additionally, giving away public assets with no return would be a loss for American taxpayers.

As a result, hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this rule change, which would eliminate the necessity of spending offsets to sell or transfer public lands.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and see it for what it truly is:

An effort by Republicans to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich and the corporations who fund their campaigns, and

An effort to continue carrying out their distorted notion of America by decimating the programs set in place to help the Americans who depend on government assistance the most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, Adopting the Rules of the 118th Congress. Instead of building on the extraordinary work done by House Democrats in the 117th Congress, Republicans are choosing to lead off this term with legislation that attacks women's health freedoms, make it easier for companies to pollute without consequence, and hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected.

This problematic Rules package is the product of non-transparent negotiations, backroom deals and promises that were made to appease the demands made by extremist members of the Republican Party to get them to vote or in some cases vote present for Speaker of the House.

Last week's catastrophic Speaker's election showed Americans how disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient the Republican leadership and Caucus can be.

Last week's chaos showed the American people how Republicans plan to govern for the next two years. This body will be ill managed, less transparent, slow moving, and will put forth legislation that will attack our freedoms and undermine our Nation's values.

Concessions made by Republican leadership last week will have devastating effects on this institution. The passage of this Rules package will pave the way for:

Any member to file a ``motion to vacate the chair,'' effectively holding the Speaker hostage;

Extreme right-wing members on key committees;

Putting an end to the possibility of Congressional staff unionization;

Reinstating the Holman Rules so Republicans can target civil servants who challenge them; and

Shut down criminal investigations into the previous president.

This problematic Rule is creating more turmoil in the Republican ranks as members wrestle with the image of witnessing the Speaker being coerced into agreeing to give a small faction of the Republican Caucus treats to appease them--including concessions to individual members for votes he needed to become Speaker.

It is not inconceivable that Republican members of the delegation must show they are not being bullied into voting for this Rules Bill.

The most problematic aspect of the Rule is that it does not spell out what the Speaker agreed to give to his opponents so that the Congress and the American people know what the Speakership actually cost them.

This is the People's House--not the Republican or Democratic House any bargaining should be focused on the needs of the American people-- they must come first.

Throughout the last election cycle, Republicans campaigned on addressing inflation and lowering the cost of living for millions of Americans.

Ironically, the first bill they are introducing repays the wealthy donors that got them their majority through dark money contributions by making it easier for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to cheat on their taxes.

We all may have varying beliefs about taxes, but we as Americans know that nothing in this life is free and that in order for our Nation to be a beacon of freedom we must have a strong defense, public assistance programs to help those in need, an education system that prepares young minds to lead, retirement programs that provided for our elder and disabled, and a healthcare system that cares for all in need of healthcare.

Passage of the rule will pave the way for Republicans to continue their assault on a woman's bodily autonomy and impede on medical decisions that should remain between medical professionals and their patient.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not criminalize abortion nationwide, make no mistake, that is their end goal, and the passage of this bill will get them one step closer to their sick idea of stripping all women of their rights.

There are concerns that language in the House Rules Package would eliminate rules requiring spending offsets for bills that sell or transfer federal public lands and waters.

This will result in a loss of public access enjoyed by the 70 million American hunters and anglers that help support the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy in the United States. Additionally, giving away public assets with no return would be a loss for American taxpayers.

As a result, hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this rule change, which would eliminate the necessity of spending offsets to sell or transfer public lands.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and see it for what it truly is:

an effort by Republicans to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich and the corporations who fund their campaigns, and

an effort to continue carrying out their distorted notion of America by decimating the programs set in place to help the Americans who depend on government assistance the most.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section: