[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2299-H2306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5719, TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND
SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1102 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1102
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform
return preparer penalty standards, delay implementation of
withholding taxes on government contractors, enhance taxpayer
protections, assist low-income taxpayers, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5719 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1102 provides for consideration of H.R. 5719,
the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, under a closed
rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the bill controlled by
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, today, April 15, is Tax Day, which has long been a
source of stress and anxiety for many working families. However, today
we will bring good news. We will consider legislation that will
alleviate many of the tax-related difficulties Americans face today and
throughout the year. This legislation will streamline the tax filing
process for individuals and businesses as well as improve IRS customer
service and strengthen privacy protections.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act is also fully paid for
by ensuring funds from tax-advantaged health savings accounts will be
used for qualified health care expenses, and by temporarily delaying a
withholding requirement on government payments to contractors.
It also contains provisions to strengthen the integrity of the Tax
Code, making it simpler and fairer for all Americans. It eliminates
incentives for U.S. companies to outsource work by ensuring they cannot
escape paying employment taxes on government workers.
In addition, this legislation will also prevent thousands of elderly
and disabled individuals from owing employment taxes for in-home care
workers provided through State and local government programs.
This legislation also improves IRS service and outreach to low-income
taxpayers in several ways. First, it allows IRS employees to refer
taxpayers requiring assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income
taxpayer clinics. It also requires that the IRS notify taxpayers of
their potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has
been the largest need-based, anti-poverty program in the United States,
lifting millions of Americans out of poverty every single year.
GAO estimates that in 2004, Americans failed to claim $8 billion in
earned income tax credits, hundreds of millions of dollars in my home
State of Ohio alone. These credits have the potential to help
strengthen families and their financial security while also benefiting
our communities at large by stimulating local economic development and
job growth. And in order to ensure that eligible families can continue
to take advantage of the earned income tax credit, this legislation
authorizes an annual $10 million grant to Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance, or VITA, programs. VITA provides free assistance to
qualified low-income taxpayers, thanks to these grants as well as the
assistance of dedicated volunteers across the country.
The availability of these valuable services makes it unnecessary for
working families to turn to high-cost tax preparers and unscrupulous
organizations engaging in predatory practices like offering what is
called ``Refund Anticipation Loans.''
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act also includes several
[[Page H2300]]
provisions to strengthen privacy protections and government
accountability. Importantly, it prohibits the IRS from providing
individual taxpayer information to private entities employing predatory
loan tactics. And it requires the IRS to notify taxpayers of suspected
identity theft and fraud. It also takes the important step of repealing
the authority of the IRS to contract with private debt collection
agencies.
Mr. Speaker, there is no duty more central to the functioning of the
Federal Government than the collection of its revenue. But under the
Bush Administration, this inherently governmental responsibility has
been farmed out to private collectors who keep up to 25 percent of the
tax revenues they collect. The program has caused confusion and
aggravation for many taxpayers because these private debt collectors
frequently demand sensitive personal information without revealing the
nature of their phone calls, as was documented in a Ways and Means
Committee hearing last year.
In addition, the operations of private contractors are not held to
the same standard of transparency as required of the Federal
Government. There is the danger that sensitive personal information
could be compromised through careless handling of these cases without
accountability. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has reported over 1,500
complaints related to this program. And not only are there serious
privacy and service issues, but the promised cost savings of the
private debt collection program has simply not materialized. One needs
to look no further than a headline on the front page of today's
Washington Post that proclaims, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They
Raise.''
Private debt collectors are also less efficient than the IRS. As the
IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service points out, the Department of the
Treasury estimates that private collection agencies collect $4 for
every dollar it invests in tax collection efforts, but every dollar
invested in IRS collections yields five times that amount.
The downside of continuing to outsource the duties of the Internal
Revenue Service clearly outweigh any benefits. It's just another
disturbing example of a poor governmental function being outsourced to
private contractors with subpar results and a lack of transparency and
accountability. It is a waste of taxpayer resources, and it is about
time that we eliminated the IRS's authority to outsource this
government responsibility.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act improves government
accountability and makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer for all
Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 52nd closed
rule of the 110th Congress, a new record for the United States
Congress. And I oppose, also, the underlying legislation which would
have been passed by this House in a bipartisan fashion without the
inclusion of two partisan and controversial measures that have already
drawn veto threats from President Bush's senior advisers.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert a Statement of Administrative Policy for
H.R. 5719 in the Congressional Record outlining the administration's
oppositions to these two provisions.
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5719--Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008
(Rep. Rangel (D) New York and 16 cosponsors.)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-
called ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of
2008.'' The bill includes provisions that would impose new
administrative burdens on the trustees of Health Savings
Accounts (HSAs). These new burdens on HSA administrators are
unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent
with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their
inception, and could undermine efforts by employers,
individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and
improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take
greater control of health care decision-making. If H.R. 5719
were presented to the President with these provisions, his
senior advisors would recommend he would veto the bill.
Also, the Administration strongly opposes the provisions of
the bill that would repeal the current statutory
authorization for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private
debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000
cases have been referred to contractors, representing over
$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program
would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the
next ten years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on
Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the
Government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by
the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous
Statements of Administration Policy, the Administration
strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not
consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced
approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting
outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to
the President with these provisions, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.
The first partisan provision unnecessarily included by our friends,
the Democrats, in this otherwise noncontroversial measure would require
all HSA account holders to verify independently the qualified nature of
medical expenses for all withdrawals subject to those transactions not
substantiated to income taxes.
In theory, it is extremely important to make sure that health savings
accounts are being used for qualified medical expenses and not for
everyday use. Unfortunately, this language takes the reporting process
way too far and risks discouraging health savings accounts enrollment,
limiting patient choice, and further burdening our banks and financial
organizations with implementing the substantial requirements.
The current system requires that nonqualified withdrawals from a
health savings account are subject to individual income taxes as well
as a 10 percent penalty. If the Internal Revenue Service is not
enforcing these penalties, it should be, and it would make sense that
Congress would take the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate
audits take place. Our constituents' health and our Nation's financial
institutions should not suffer from the Federal Government's
inefficiency.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has said that this provision would
save money, though they are unable to determine how much savings would
result from the newly captured penalties and taxes that make HSAs,
health savings accounts, less attractive to consumers, in turn, giving
them less health care choices.
I might add that HSAs are there to provide consumers that do not have
the tax advantages that corporate employees have, it gives employees
health care on a pretax basis and is very important to families across
this country.
But consumers are not the only ones who would suffer. Introducing a
new step of independent substantiation would increase costs for banks
and account administrators. Should that happen, it is very possible
that they will pass on these costs to employees, and ultimately,
consumers.
Over the past several weeks, Democrats have loudly complained about
the charges that banks and other commercial lending institutions pass
on to their customers, yet provisions allow for the possibility of
increasing those costs further when it now applies to an HSA. I think
Members of this body should be opposed to that.
The other controversial and partisan provisions included in this
legislation would revoke the Internal Revenue Service's authority to
contract out collection authority for those small accounts that in the
private sector would often be referred to as ``old and cold.'' In 2004,
Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and
advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog
of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these
unpaid taxes exist, meaning that every year the average taxpayer who
plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover the taxes not paid
for by these people who are not paying.
This new practice, which begins as a small pilot program that grows
as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in approximately $2.2
billion in the first 10 years alone. And under this agreement, the IRS
would get the first 25 cents of every dollar to hire new collections
professionals, a provision that will have a positive, compound effect
by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue
for the government in the future.
The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous
attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed,
has been hugely
[[Page H2301]]
successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes.
Mr. Speaker, that means that $30 million worth of taxes that the IRS
chose not to collect has been brought in as a result of what these
outside collectors have done. It has received a 98 percent rating from
the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy as well as a 100 percent
rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the
taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints
with the IRS, not one of which has been validated.
Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers
who play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention
the increased revenues that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other
new, big spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other
side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work,
supposedly to protect the dues of big government union bosses.
{time} 1515
They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in
America already contract out their services, that this is something
that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it
to be said that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government
Accounting Office found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private
collectors . . . and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could
learn from their best practices as it works to resolve longstanding
problems with its debt collection activities.''
As well, in July of 2007, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was
incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in
over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 full
agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the
government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not
have otherwise received, which was about one-eighth of what it cost for
these nonexisting services to be paid for.
In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will
lose his or her job as a result of this highly efficient private
contracting. Instead, the IRS will benefit from the opportunity to
focus their talent, expertise, and resources on higher priority, more
complex cases.
Last night in the most-closed-Congress-in-history Rules Committee, I
offered an amendment coauthored by my friend Congressman Kevin Brady of
Texas to strike this unfortunate provision, which was unsurprisingly
defeated by the Democrat majority along party lines.
I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule and
the underlying legislation that includes these two provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I'd just like to clarify for
the record some of the things that have been presented.
The National Taxpayer Advocate, who is appointed by the Treasury
Secretary, reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS
Private Debt Collection initiative is an inefficient use of government
dollars.'' The Chief of the National Taxpayer Advocate Service
testified that the IRS employees bring in $20 for every dollar IRS
spends, whereas private debt collectors bring in only $4.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the
underlying legislation. The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act
is an important step toward a more straightforward, just tax system. I
commend Chairman Rangel for his tireless leadership.
Among other things, this bill will allow IRS employees to refer
taxpayers needing assistance to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics,
boost outreach, supporting the earned income tax credit. For so many
families facing such great income insecurity during these difficult
times, the EITC is a powerful initiative whose benefits reach our
entire economy.
In particular, I want to recognize Representative Ellsworth and
highlight this bill's Fair Tax Provision, rooted in our belief that no
one, no one, should receive special privileges under our tax system.
After all, what does it say about our Nation and our priorities when
American companies like Kellog, Brown & Root, by far the largest
contractor in Iraq, are allowed to take their Department of Defense
dollars and filter them through offshore shell companies in order to
avoid paying significant Social Security and Medicare taxes? It is my
understanding that there are no other contractors in Iraq who are doing
this.
KBR, which received a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq's oil
infrastructure and provides logistical support to the military, employs
roughly 14,000 Americans in Iraq, and nearly all of them, approximately
10,500, are listed as employees of two Cayman Islands' shell companies,
contracted by KBR solely to avoid paying payroll taxes for those
workers.
And that means big cost savings passed on to a Defense Department
that is contracted to reimburse KBR for all its labor costs while
guaranteeing a profit, a Defense Department that is more than ready to
look the other way as long as the bottom line works out in its favor.
Indeed, the department knew KBR was shirking its responsibilities since
2004; yet they took no action. This kind of setup may mean a smaller
price tag on any particular contract, but the long-term costs to the
government and the taxpayer are far greater, $846 million over 10
years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the only one
who really wins in the end is the company who gets the contract thanks
to its unfair competitive advantage.
Mr. Speaker, these practices must end. This bill amends current law
to treat foreign subsidies of U.S. companies under contract with the
U.S. Government as American employers. And it changes the degree of
common ownership to 50 percent, ensuring that more companies owing
taxes are subject to the new law and greater transparency.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for the Department of
Defense to pay for this war by doing business with a company that
siphons money from its own workers and its own government, undermining
the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds in the process. When
tax dodgers try to avoid their responsibility, the American taxpayer
suffers. This company should not be allowed to shirk their
responsibilities and then be able to reap the rewards of very large
Federal contracts. It is wrong. It should end. And we can no longer
afford to look the other way.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get it. The IRS has a lot
of work to do, and then as accounts become older because they don't get
to those and they become 2, 3, 4, 5 years old but they are still debts
that are owed this country, the IRS now, or at least we are led to
believe this, would go collect that money when they hadn't done it
their first 5 years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not true. They will not go collect these
accounts. They are old. And the point is it's still a debt that is owed
to the United States Government. And that's where these private
collectors come in. Private collectors that collect for at least 40 out
of 50 States. Private collectors that have a 100 percent rating.
Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to say is that the IRS probably does
do a good job with what it does do. But when it has not handled an
account, it is unwise and bad for the taxpayer not to receive that
money that is due from its services and from the taxes that took place,
and that's what these collectors are all about. To say that they're not
as efficient an outside collector as an IRS collector is silly because
these cases are ones the IRS didn't want to handle in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 5719.
As we are all aware, today is April 15, and once again Americans from
all
[[Page H2302]]
across this land and from all walks of life must fork over their hard-
earned income to the IRS. So to ease the burden on the taxpayer, the
House Democratic leadership, under a closed rule, no opportunity for
amendment, brings up this so-called Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act.
However, Mr. Speaker, anyone who takes a good, hard look at the
language in the bill, they might not think today is April 15 but rather
April Fools Day. In fact, this legislation should really be entitled
the ``Tax Evader Assistance and Simplification Act.''
For example, this legislation will provide assistance to those who
just don't feel like paying their taxes by eliminating a successful
debt collection program that my friend from Texas just mentioned.
Instead of lowering taxes for hardworking Americans of over half a
billion dollars, this majority would rather give a tax break to these
tax evaders to the tune, Mr. Speaker, of about $600 million.
And, unfortunately, to pay for these tax-evader protections, this
bill targets what? Health Savings Accounts and the millions of
Americans who are trying to take control of their own health care
decisions. This legislation will cost those Americans who use HSAs, as
my children do, nearly $500 million. It effectively works to destroy
market-based solutions in order to force government-run health care
down the throats of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this bill makes today seem more
like April Fools Day. Well, that moniker already belongs to April 1; so
perhaps we can just call today ``Thank a Congressional Democrat Day.''
I would say to the American people if they are happy that this
Congress today will basically give away $600 million to tax evaders,
thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has done nothing
to repeal the deplorable death tax, thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has refused time
after time to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 when our economy
needs it most, thank a congressional Democrat.
If they are happy with the fact this Congress has for 2 straight
years passed budgets that included the largest tax increase in United
States history, thank a congressional Democrat.
And if they look forward to the prospect of writing an even bigger
check to the IRS next year than they did this year, well, you guessed
it, they can thank a congressional Democrat.
Mr. Speaker, I again ask all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican,
to oppose this rule so this bill can be amended to provide real
assistance to the American taxpayer. But if this rule passes, I call
upon them to oppose the underlying ``Tax Evader Protection and
Simplification Act.''
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support moving forward
with this legislation.
I was a former small business owner, and I understand the real costs
of health care, health insurance, increasing year after year. It's my
understanding that the health savings account provision is not going to
increase the burden on employers. The bill does not intend for
employers to be subject to any additional burdens or obligations. And
what it simply does is it closes the tax gap by requiring HSA trustees
to report amounts paid to individuals that are not identified with
medical expenses. Furthermore, we are going to be asking the GAO to
study the uses of distribution from the HSAs.
So I'm really pleased to know that we are ensuring that this
provision does not negatively impact our business community.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from
Arizona's letting us know about her understanding of what's happening.
What I would like to tell her is that a number of companies,
including the National Association for the Self-Employed, National
Association of Health Underwriters, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail
Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Principal Financial Group, Retail
Industry Leaders Association, Financial Services Roundtable, the HSA
Council, the UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WellPoint,
these people that employ people that utilize the HSA, are all saying it
will have a negative impact upon the use of HSAs making it easier for
individuals to get and have health care on a pretax basis.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
{time} 1530
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me just make the observation that today
is Tax Day, and effectively what we are doing to the American taxpayers
is making them jump through more hoops. Certainly if they have an HSA,
and the costs of this program are projected to be about a half a
billion dollars a year, what we are going to be doing, what we are
doing in bringing this bill to the floor, is enacting burdensome
bureaucratic regulations that are going to undermine those health
savings accounts which have been proven successful at slowing the
growth of health costs and cutting insurance premiums for millions of
individuals and small businesses. And my colleague has just listed all
the business groups that are opposed to this legislation.
The question I guess I have is in the last session, we had a largely
bipartisan bill that the Republicans put forward, with Democratic
support, 407-7 it passed. But now we have this provision dropped into
this bill that cripples health savings accounts. Now I know we have a
philosophical difference of opinion on whether we want to keep health
care private and do it through the marketplace, or whether we want to
have a government nationalization and takeover of health care. What I
am sharing with you is if you cripple HSAs in this way, I guess you do
build momentum for a government takeover of health care. But that is
not going to make savings for the American consumers.
HSAs are effective in reducing costs for the consumer. And I have got
to tell you, these new burdens are unnecessary. They are inefficient.
They are inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at
their inception. These provisions undermine efforts by employers,
individuals and insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health
outcomes.
How is it possible that we are going to consider a program here where
it will take longer to receive reimbursements and will require
individuals to come up with money out of their own pocket, potentially
hundreds of dollars, on occasion $1,000 or so, at one time under this
new proposal?
I just think that this new step of independent substantiation frankly
helps only one company, or a very limited number of companies who offer
such bureaucratic systems and imposes costs on all of the rest. This is
going to increase the costs for the banks, for the account
administrators, and for the individual who uses them. And it is going
to be passed on to the consumers.
So we do complain about the charges which banks and other commercial
lending institutions pass on to their customers. But why have this
provision that is going to increase those costs on the consumer? This
does not make sense. Health savings accounts were created to reduce the
growth of health care costs. And they have achieved some noteworthy
successes. But this bill is going to lead to increased health care
costs for individuals by crippling HSAs. Don't taxpayers have enough to
worry about on Tax Day?
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can fix this
bill and provide a little relief to hardworking Americans on April 15.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. This is an important bill and a timely bill.
This is a bill that is due as a gift to the American people on this day
which is referred to as Tax Day, April 15.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill simplifies the Tax Code. It also deals
with antiharassment. It also deals with making sure that companies who
do business in foreign lands are not using offshore accounts as scams
to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the simplification
of the code and applies that to those people
[[Page H2303]]
who need it the most, because so many people, Mr. Speaker, are not even
getting the advantages and getting their due from paying the taxes
because of the fact that our Tax Code is so complicated. It is so
complex. And this bill streamlines that.
Now let me take just a few minute to go through some very salient
points. The Government Accountability Office estimates that Americans
overpaid their taxes by over $1 billion a year because they failed to
claim deductions. This bill deals with that. About a quarter of
Americans who are eligible for the earned income tax credit failed to
claim that due to its complexity.
But what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is it makes the Tax Code
simpler and fairer. It strengthens the IRS's outreach program to make
sure that people know that they are entitled to the tax refunds and to
payments earned under the earned income tax credit. As I mentioned,
there are 25 percent of households who are eligible for the earned
income tax credit in 1999 that did not even claim it. And working
Americans may have lost out on approximately $8 billion. This bill
corrects that.
And one of the most important measures of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is
that the American people are tired of the harassment. They are tired of
the phone calls, the abuse by these private collectors in which jobs
are outsourced by the IRS to go collect the Federal debt. We have
talked with the IRS. We have talked with the commissioner of the IRS.
And he agrees with us that that can best be done not by outsourcing
these jobs out, but by having the IRS employees collect that debt.
Personal financial information of our American people is too precious
and it is too confidential to be in the hands of private contractors on
the outside.
And just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, we have foreign companies like
KBR that are working and having millions of dollars of contracts
servicing in Iraq. But they are using offshore accounts to hide that
money to make sure that they do not have to pay the important taxes
that go to Medicaid and to Medicare, not only not paying their fair
share, Mr. Speaker, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but not even
allowing their employees to qualify for Medicare and for Social
Security. This bill corrects that.
And another important area, Mr. Speaker, is the new taxpayer
protections against identity theft and tax fraud. It cracks down on
misleading web sites that seek to get personal information by using
their web sites and imitating and pretending that they are the IRS. Now
Mr. Speaker, the American people are certainly fed up with being abused
by these private collectors, being abused by these Web siters who are
posing themselves as IRS agents.
This is a very important measure. I support this rule going forward.
This is a very important bill, giving the taxpayers a due recognition,
making the Tax Code simpler, and making sure it is fair for all. It is
a good bill. I support this bill rule, and let's pass this bill and
move it forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that both sides have
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. I am
opposed because the majority continues to punish States without an
income tax, States like Florida. Under the Republican leadership,
Congress allowed States to once again allow their residents to deduct
the State sales tax from their Federal income tax, just as other States
are able to deduct their State income tax. My colleagues and I have
repeatedly asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to extend
the deduction. But we have repeatedly been ignored.
As we all know, providing tax relief is a very important and
effective way to stimulate our economy. Yet, the majority is choosing
to pass a tax increase on to Floridians and residents of other States
that only have a State sales tax.
Florida has the second highest foreclosure rate in America. And this,
ladies and gentlemen, would increase taxes on people already stressing
to pay their mortgage payments, and today being April 15, obviously, to
rush down to the post office to pay their Federal income tax.
The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act will not assist the
average taxpayer nor simplify their tax burden. Even though the bill is
being considered today, I haven't had a single constituent contact me
in support of this measure. I have, however, had some pretty upset
constituents come in about the fact that this is going to be the last
year that they can deduct the sales tax on their Federal income tax.
Instead of heading off their requests, the majority is passing this
bill under a closed rule, disallowing Members to help our cash-strapped
constituents. The majority should really be ashamed of what they are
doing today.
I urge all Members to vote against this rule and also the underlying
bill.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Ellsworth).
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me
and yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act that is before us today. As everyone knows, it is
April 15, Tax Day. No one likes paying taxes. But what folks really
hate is when they have to pay more because bad actors are gaming the
system and not paying their fair share. In fact, recent reports in the
Boston Globe has shown that some government contractors have been using
offshore Cayman Islands places, tax havens, to avoid paying their
payroll taxes that they owe. A few weeks ago, I introduced the Fair
Share Act to put a stop to this abuse, and I am proud to have this
legislation included as part of today's important bill.
My constituents back in the Eighth District of Indiana don't want to
pay even more taxes to shore up programs like Social Security and
Medicare because companies who receive billions of dollars from this
very government are exploiting the tax system today.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a strong message
that Congress is not going to stand by and let contractors cheat their
workers, cheat the government or the American taxpayers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas
if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do
not have any additional speakers other than my close.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I'll
reserve my time until the gentleman has closed on his side and yielded
back his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, today is
Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes
without incurring financial penalties.
This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax
Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American
has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at
the Federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until
next week, April 23.
In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer
calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question to this rule. If this previous question is
defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to
consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.
This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted
by that act permanent. Let me say that again in regular English. That
means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make sure that all
these hardworking taxpayers that we are talking about won't have to pay
an increase of taxes because the new Democrat majority wants tax
increases for every single taxpayer in this country.
Today is an opportunity where we can make those tax cuts permanent to
[[Page H2304]]
make sure that our Tax Code encourages not only employers, but
employees, and to grow our economy. It also repeals the termination
date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003, thereby reducing income tax rates on
dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to
make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, the
tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing
allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax
credit for increasing research activities.
{time} 1545
In summary, I would just say this, that what it will do is to
maintain in a time of uncertainty the ability for America to continue
to grow jobs, which means that America can compete globally. On the
other hand, if you are for tax increases, if you want to tax taxpayers
more, just simply vote with the Democrat majority.
Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on
or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax
system.
Mr. Speaker, I can think of a no more fitting action for Congress
during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this
kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.
By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting
to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be
voting to provide tax relief to Americans as they provide debt relief
the same day to the world's poorest countries. I encourage all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of taxpayers who want to continue economic
growth in America, I say let's vote to make the tax cuts permanent.
Amendment to H. Res. 1102 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain
other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by
Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification
Act of 2008 is a strong pro-taxpayer bill that adopts legislative
recommendations and tackles many of the most serious problems detailed
in the National Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress.
In this weakening economy, America's working families will face many
challenges in the months ahead and we in Congress need to do what we
can to help. This legislation will streamline the tax filing process
and ease the burden of tax law compliance, it will ensure that we are
good stewards of taxpayer funds by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful
programs that compromise the integrity of our governmental functions,
and it makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer by eliminating unduly
burdensome compliance requirements and providing commonsense solutions.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation, because it
makes the needs of working Americans a priority.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support ordering the previous
question because I think the House should proceed to considering H.R.
5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, without
unnecessary delay.
Some have urged that Members oppose ordering the previous question so
that the House could consider legislation to make permanent all the tax
cuts the Bush Administration pushed through Congress in 2001.
I supported some of those reductions, but opposed others, and am not
convinced that they should all be made permanent. But in any event,
they will remain in effect until 2010. There is no need for us to
consider today which should be extended, either as they stand or in
modified form. I think instead we should proceed to the debate on H.R.
5719, and so I am voting to order the previous question.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 1102, the Rule to Consider H.R. 5719, ``Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008''. This legislation, introduced by Chairman
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis
(D-GA), modernizes Internal Revenue Service functions to make filing
taxes simpler while improving outreach to taxpayers.
This Rule allows considerations:
Summary of H.R. 5719
Key provisions included in H.R. 5719 as agreed to by the Committee
would eliminate the special requirements for individuals to keep
detailed records of calls made on employer-provided cell phones; delay
for one year the imposition of a three-percent withholding requirement
on government payments for goods and services made after December 31,
2010; stops federal contractors from using foreign subsidiaries to
evade Social Security and other employment taxes; make the
administrators of state and local government programs liable for paying
the employment taxes on amounts paid by government programs to in-home
care workers provided to elderly and disabled persons; repeal the IRS's
authority to use private debt collection companies to collect Federal
taxes; prohibit the misuse of Department of the Treasury names and
symbols in misleading websites and ``phishing'' schemes; protect low-
income taxpayers by prohibiting IRS debt indicators for predatory
[[Page H2305]]
refund anticipation loans, allowing IRS employees to refer taxpayers to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics, and authorizing funding for
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, and require the IRS
to notify taxpayers if it suspects theft of a taxpayer's identity.
Programs for the Benefit of Low-Income Taxpayers
There are parts of this tax bill that help the working poor and our
elderly, making this tax bill truly live up to its name of being one of
Taxpayer Assistance--not just give a credit to the top 2% of Americans.
This bill would authorize an annual $10 million grant for Volunteer
Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, increasing the annual
aggregate limitation authorized on grants to qualified low-income
taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
This bill would allow IRS employees to refer taxpayers needing
assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics so
they can get the help they need. Many people are struggling with how to
manage complicated tax cases when they can barely afford to pay their
mortgage. This portion of the bill will alleviate the fear that is
sometimes associated with IRS tax cases particularly among people who
cannot afford legal counsel.
Elderly and Disabled Individuals Receiving In-Home Care
This bill would make the administrators of state and local government
programs liable for paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by
government programs to in-home care workers provided to elderly and
disabled persons. This is yet another provision of the bill that
benefits our most vulnerable populations.
Conclusion
Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow
for full consideration of this bill by supporting H. Res. 1102, the
Rule providing for consideration of the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act of 2008. I fully support what Representative Rangel
and the Committee on Ways and Means has done to alleviate some of the
burden on taxpayers.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Sutton
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the rule which I
have placed at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Sutton:
Add at the end the following new sections:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment considered as adopted under the
first section of this resolution shall be modified as
specified in section 4.
Sec. 4. The modification referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Page 21, line 26, insert ``as related to account
beneficiary substantiation requirements'' after ``flexible
spending arrangements''.
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 20. GAO STUDY ON HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the use of distributions from
health savings accounts.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit a report on the findings of the study conducted
under subsection (a) and shall include therein
recommendations (if any) relating to such findings. The
report shall be submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the amendment to House
Resolution 1102, if ordered; adopting House Resolution 1102, if
ordered; and suspending the rules with respect to H.R. 5036.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 196, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
YEAS--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Blunt
Capuano
Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
LoBiondo
Mack
Meek (FL)
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)
{time} 1612
Messrs. LAMBORN, McHENRY and STEARNS changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. HIGGINS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
[[Page H2306]]
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 195, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 187]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Capuano
Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Honda
LoBiondo
Mack
Pallone
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes are left.
{time} 1620
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________