Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2307-H2322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1102, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1102, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5719

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer
Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.
Sec. 2. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's
liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 3. Removal of cellular telephones (or similar telecommunications
equipment) from listed property.
Sec. 4. Delay of application of withholding requirement on certain
governmental payments for goods and services.
Sec. 5. Elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care under
certain government programs not subject to employment tax
provisions.
Sec. 6. Referrals to low income taxpayer clinics permitted.
Sec. 7. Programs for the benefit of low-income taxpayers.
Sec. 8. EITC outreach.
Sec. 9. Prohibition on IRS debt indicators for predatory refund
anticipation loans.
Sec. 10. Study on delivery of tax refunds.
Sec. 11. Extension of time for return of property for wrongful levy.
Sec. 12. Individuals held harmless on wrongful levy, etc., on
individual retirement plan.
Sec. 13. Taxpayer notification of suspected identity theft.
Sec. 14. Repeal of authority to enter into private debt collection
contracts.
Sec. 15. Clarification of IRS unclaimed refund authority.
Sec. 16. Prohibition on misuse of Department of the Treasury names and
symbols.
Sec. 17. Substantiation of amounts paid or distributed out of health
savings account.
Sec. 18. Certain domestically controlled foreign persons performing
services under contract with United States Government
treated as American employers.
Sec. 19. Time for payment of corporate estimated tax.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PENALTY ON UNDERSTATEMENT OF
TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY BY TAX RETURN PREPARER.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 6694 (relating
to understatement due to unreasonable positions) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Understatement Due to Unreasonable Positions.--
``(1) In general.--If a tax return preparer--
``(A) prepares any return or claim of refund with respect
to which any part of an understatement of liability is due to
a position described in paragraph (2), and
``(B) knew (or reasonably should have known) of the
position,

such tax return preparer shall pay a penalty with respect to
each such return or claim in an amount equal to the greater
of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be
derived) by the tax return preparer with respect to the
return or claim.
``(2) Unreasonable position.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, a position is described in this paragraph unless
there is or was substantial authority for the position.
``(B) Disclosed positions.--If the position was disclosed
as provided in section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and is not a
position to which subparagraph (C) applies, the position is
described in this paragraph unless there is a reasonable
basis for the position.
``(C) Tax shelters and reportable transactions.--If the
position is with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in
section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii)) or a reportable transaction to
which section 6662A applies, the position is described in
this paragraph unless it is reasonable to believe that the
position would more likely than not be sustained on its
merits.
``(3) Reasonable cause exception.--No penalty shall be
imposed under this subsection if it is shown that there is
reasonable cause for the understatement and the tax return
preparer acted in good faith.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply--
(1) in the case of a position described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of section 6694(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (as amended by this section), to returns prepared after
May 25, 2007, and
(2) in the case of a position described in subparagraph (C)
of such section (as amended by this section), to returns
prepared for taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (OR SIMILAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT) FROM LISTED
PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4)
(defining listed property) is amended by inserting ``and'' at
the end of clause (iv), by striking clause (v), and by
redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 4. DELAY OF APPLICATION OF WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT ON
CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS FOR GOODS AND
SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 511 of the Tax
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December
31, 2011''.

[[Page H2308]]

(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate a report with respect to the withholding
requirements of section 3402(t) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, including a detailed analysis of--
(1) the problems, if any, which are anticipated in
administering and complying with such requirements,
(2) the burdens, if any, that such requirements will place
on governments and businesses (taking into account such
mechanisms as may be necessary to administer such
requirements), and
(3) the application of such requirements to small
expenditures for services and goods by governments.

SEC. 5. ELDERLY AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING IN-HOME
CARE UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS NOT
SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT TAX PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 25 (relating to general provisions
relating to employment taxes) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 3511. ELDERLY AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING IN-
HOME CARE UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of amounts paid under a home
care service program to a home care service provider by the
fiscal administrator of such program--
``(1) the home care service recipient shall not be liable
for the payment of any taxes imposed under this subtitle with
respect to amounts paid for the provision of services under
such program, and
``(2) the fiscal administrator shall be so liable.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Home care service program.--The term `home care
service program' means a State or local government program--
``(A) any portion of which is funded with Federal funds,
and
``(B) under which domestic services are provided to elderly
or disabled individuals in their homes.

Such term shall not include any program to the extent home
care service recipients make payments to the home care
service providers for such in-home domestic services.
``(2) Home care service provider.--The term `home care
service provider' means any individual who provides domestic
services to a home care service recipient under a home care
service program.
``(3) Home care service recipient.--The term `home care
service recipient' means any individual receiving domestic
services under a home care service program.
``(4) Fiscal administrator.--The term `fiscal
administrator' means any person or governmental entity who
pays amounts under a home care service program to home care
service providers for the provision of domestic services
under such program.
``(c) Returns by Fiscal Administrator.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--Returns relating to taxes imposed or
amounts required to be withheld under this subtitle shall be
made under the identifying number of the fiscal
administrator.
``(2) Identification of service recipient.--The fiscal
administrator shall, to the extent required under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, make a return setting forth--
``(A) the name, address, and identifying number of each
home care service recipient for whom amounts are paid by such
fiscal administrator under the home care services program,
and
``(B) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this section, including requiring
deposits of any tax imposed under this subtitle.''.
(b) Service Recipient Identification Return Treated as
Information Return.--Paragraph (3) of section 6724(d) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(C)(ii), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
(D)(ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) any requirement under section 3511(c)(2).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
25 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 3511. Elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care
under certain government programs.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 6. REFERRALS TO LOW INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS PERMITTED.

(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 7526 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Treasury employees permitted to refer taxpayers to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, officers and employees of the
Department of the Treasury may refer taxpayers for advice and
assistance to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics receiving
funding under this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to referrals made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROGRAMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOW-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

(a) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Programs.--Chapter 77
(relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by
inserting after section 7526 the following new section:

``SEC. 7526A. VOLUNTEER INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds, make grants to provide
matching funds for the development, expansion, or
continuation of volunteer income tax assistance programs.
``(b) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program.--For
purposes of this section, the term `volunteer income tax
assistance program' means a program--
``(1) which does not charge taxpayers for its return
preparation services,
``(2) which operates programs to assist low and moderate-
income (as determined by the Secretary) taxpayers in
preparing and filing their Federal income tax returns, and
``(3) in which all of the volunteers who assist in the
preparation of Federal income tax returns meet the
requirements prescribed by the Secretary.
``(c) Special Rules and Limitations.--
``(1) Aggregate limitation.--Unless otherwise provided by
specific appropriation, the Secretary shall not allocate more
than $10,000,000 per year (exclusive of costs of
administering the program) to grants under this section.
``(2) Other applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules
under paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 7526(c) shall
apply with respect to the awarding of grants to volunteer
income tax assistance programs.''.
(b) Increase in Authorized Grants for Low-Income Taxpayer
Clinics.--Paragraph (1) of section 7526(c) (relating to
aggregate limitation) is amended by striking ``$6,000,000''
and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 7526(c)(5) is amended by inserting
``qualified'' before ``low-income''.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 77 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 7526 the
following new item:

``Sec. 7526A. Volunteer income tax assistance programs.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. EITC OUTREACH.

(a) In General.--Section 32 (relating to earned income) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Notification of Potential Eligibility for Credit and
Refund.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent possible and on an annual
basis, the Secretary shall provide to each taxpayer who--
``(A) for any preceding taxable year for which credit or
refund is not precluded by section 6511, and
``(B) did not claim the credit under subsection (a) but may
be allowed such credit for any such taxable year based on
return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b))
available to the Secretary,

notice that such taxpayer may be eligible to claim such
credit and a refund for such taxable year.
``(2) Notice.--Notice provided under paragraph (1) shall be
in writing and sent to the last known address of the
taxpayer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON IRS DEBT INDICATORS FOR PREDATORY
REFUND ANTICIPATION LOANS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 6011 (relating
to promotion of electronic filing) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Prohibition on irs debt indicators for predatory
refund anticipation loans.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out any program under this
subsection, the Secretary shall not provide a debt indicator
to any person with respect to any refund anticipation loan if
the Secretary determines that the business practices of such
person involve refund anticipation loans and related charges
and fees that are predatory.
``(B) Refund anticipation loan.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `refund anticipation loan' means a loan
of money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer secured
by the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax
refund.
``(C) IRS debt indicator.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `debt indicator' means a notification provided
through a tax return's acknowledgment file that a refund will
be offset to repay debts for delinquent Federal or State
taxes, student loans, child support, or other Federal agency
debt.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 10. STUDY ON DELIVERY OF TAX REFUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, shall
conduct a study on the feasibility of delivering tax refunds
on debit cards, prepaid cards, and other electronic means to
assist individuals that do not have access to financial
accounts or institutions.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a report to Congress containing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 11. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FOR
WRONGFUL LEVY.

(a) Extension of Time for Return of Property Subject to
Levy.--Subsection (b) of section 6343 (relating to return of
property) is amended by striking ``9 months'' and inserting
``2 years''.

[[Page H2309]]

(b) Period of Limitation on Suits.--Subsection (c) of
section 6532 (relating to suits by persons other than
taxpayers) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``9 months'' and inserting
``2 years'', and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``9-month'' and inserting
``2-year''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) levies made after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and
(2) levies made on or before such date if the 9-month
period has not expired under section 6343(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (without regard to this section) as of
such date.

SEC. 12. INDIVIDUALS HELD HARMLESS ON WRONGFUL LEVY, ETC., ON
INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLAN.

(a) In General.--Section 6343 (relating to authority to
release levy and return property) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Individuals Held Harmless on Wrongful Levy, etc. on
Individual Retirement Plan.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that an
individual retirement plan has been levied upon in a case to
which subsection (b) or (d)(2)(A) applies, an amount equal to
the sum of--
``(A) the amount of money returned by the Secretary on
account of such levy, and
``(B) interest paid under subsection (c) on such amount of
money,

may be deposited into such individual retirement plan or any
other individual retirement plan (other than an endowment
contract) to which a rollover from the plan levied upon is
permitted. An amount may not be deposited into a Roth IRA
under the preceding sentence unless the individual retirement
plan levied upon was a Roth IRA at the time of such levy.
``(2) Treatment as rollover.--If amounts are deposited into
an individual retirement plan under paragraph (1) not later
than the 60th day after the date on which the individual
receives the amounts under paragraph (1)--
``(A) such deposit shall be treated as a rollover described
in section 408(d)(3)(A)(i),
``(B) to the extent the deposit includes interest paid
under subsection (c), such interest shall not be includible
in gross income, and
``(C) such deposit shall not be taken into account under
section 408(d)(3)(B).
For purposes of subparagraph (B), an amount shall be treated
as interest only to the extent that the amount deposited
exceeds the amount of the levy.
``(3) Refund, etc., of income tax on levy.--If any amount
is includible in gross income for a taxable year by reason of
a levy referred to in paragraph (1) and any portion of such
amount is treated as a rollover under paragraph (2), any tax
imposed by chapter 1 on such portion shall not be assessed,
and if assessed shall be abated, and if collected shall be
credited or refunded as an overpayment made on the due date
for filing the return of tax for such taxable year.
``(4) Interest.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), interest
shall be allowed under subsection (c) in a case in which the
Secretary makes a determination described in subsection
(d)(2)(A) with respect to a levy upon an individual
retirement plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid under subsections (b), (c), and
(d)(2)(A) of section 6343 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 13. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 77 (relating to miscellaneous
provisions) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 7529. NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT.

``If, in the course of an investigation under the internal
revenue laws, the Secretary determines that there was or may
have been an unauthorized use of the identity of the taxpayer
or a dependent of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall, to the
extent permitted by law--
``(1) as soon as practicable and without jeopardizing such
investigation, notify the taxpayer of such determination, and
``(2) if any person is criminally charged by indictment or
information with respect to such unauthorized use, notify
such taxpayer as soon as practicable of such charge.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
77 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 7529. Notification of suspected identity theft.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to determinations made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 14. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO PRIVATE DEBT
COLLECTION CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 64 is amended by
striking section 6306.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subchapter B of chapter 76 is amended by striking
section 7433A.
(2) Section 7811 is amended by striking subsection (g).
(3) Section 1203 of the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring Act of 1998 is amended by striking subsection
(e).
(4) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 64 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 6306.
(5) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 76 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 7433A.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception for existing contracts, etc.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to any contract which
was entered into before March 1, 2008, and is not renewed or
extended on or after such date.
(3) Unauthorized contracts and extensions treated as
void.--Any qualified tax collection contract (as defined in
section 6306 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in
effect before its repeal) which is entered into on or after
March 1, 2008, and any extension or renewal on or after such
date of any qualified tax collection contract (as so
defined), shall be void.

SEC. 15. CLARIFICATION OF IRS UNCLAIMED REFUND AUTHORITY.

Paragraph (1) of section 6103(m) (relating to tax refunds)
is amended by inserting ``, and through any other means of
mass communication,'' after ``media''.

SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON MISUSE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
NAMES AND SYMBOLS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 333 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``Internet domain
address,'' after ``solicitation,'' both places it appears.
(b) Penalty for Misuse by Electronic Means.--Subsections
(c)(2) and (d)(1) of section 333 of such Code are each
amended by inserting ``or any other mass communications by
electronic means,'' after ``telecast,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 17. SUBSTANTIATION OF AMOUNTS PAID OR DISTRIBUTED OUT OF
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 223(f) (relating
to amounts used for qualified medical expenses) is amended by
inserting ``(and, in the case of amounts paid or distributed
after December 31, 2010, substantiated in a manner similar to
the substantiation required for flexible spending
arrangements)'' after ``account beneficiary''.
(b) Reports.--Subsection (h) of section 223 (relating to
reports) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
(2) by moving the text of subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so
redesignated) and the last sentence 2 ems to the right,
(3) by striking ``(h) Reports.--The Secretary may require--
'' and inserting the following:
``(h) Reports.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require--'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Relating to substantiation.--Not later than January
15 of each calendar year after 2011, the trustee of a health
savings account shall make a report regarding such account to
the Secretary and the account beneficiary setting forth--
``(A) the name, address, and identifying number of the
account beneficiary, and
``(B) the amount paid or distributed out of such account
for the preceding calendar year not substantiated in
accordance with subsection (f)(1).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to amounts paid or distributed out
of health savings accounts after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 18. CERTAIN DOMESTICALLY CONTROLLED FOREIGN PERSONS
PERFORMING SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT WITH UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT TREATED AS AMERICAN
EMPLOYERS.

(a) FICA Taxes.--Section 3121 (relating to definitions) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(z) Treatment of Certain Foreign Persons as American
Employers.--
``(1) In general.--If any employee of a foreign person is
performing services in connection with a contract between the
United States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and
any member of any domestically controlled group of entities
which includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall
be treated for purposes of this chapter as an American
employer with respect to such services performed by such
employee.
``(2) Domestically controlled group of entities.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `domestically controlled group
of entities' means a controlled group of entities the common
parent of which is a domestic corporation.
``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled
group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations
as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation)
shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of
entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of
section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any
entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this
sentence).
``(3) Liability of common parent.--In the case of a foreign
person who is a member of any domestically controlled group
of entities, the common parent of such group shall be jointly
and severally liable for any tax under this chapter for which
such foreign person is liable by reason of this subsection,
and for any penalty imposed on such person by this title with
respect to any failure to pay such tax or to file any return
or statement with respect to such tax or wages subject to
such tax. No deduction shall be allowed under this title for
any liability imposed by the preceding sentence.

[[Page H2310]]

``(4) Coordination.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
services which are covered by an agreement under subsection
(l).
``(5) Cross reference.--For relief from taxes in cases
covered by certain international agreements, see sections
3101(c) and 3111(c).''.
(b) Social Security Benefits.--Subsection (e) of section
210 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(e)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(e) The term'' and inserting ``(e)(1) The
term'',
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) through (6) as clauses (A)
through (F), respectively, and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2)(A) If any employee of a foreign person is performing
services in connection with a contract between the United
States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and any
member of any domestically controlled group of entities which
includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall be
treated as an American employer with respect to such services
performed by such employee.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The term `domestically controlled group of entities'
means a controlled group of entities the common parent of
which is a domestic corporation.
``(ii) The term `controlled group of entities' means a
controlled group of corporations as defined in section
1563(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except
that--
``(I) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(II) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563 of such Code.

SEC. 19. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAX.

The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.25 percentage points.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, on Tax Day, it is so important that we bring H.R. 5719
to the floor of the House. Taxpayers must be treated fairly, and they
deserve all the help we can give them.
This bill draws, in part, on legislation authored by myself and many
members of the Ways and Means Committee. Most of the pieces of this
bill enjoy bipartisan support.
This bill will assist victims of identity theft and prevent the
misuse of the IRS name in schemes that defraud the public.
The bill helps low-income taxpayers by allowing IRS employees to
refer them to low-income taxpayer clinics, expanding earned income tax
credit outreach, and authorizing funding for low-income taxpayer
programs.
It would, once and for all, repeal the authority of the IRS to enter
into private debt collection contracts. This program violates the
public trust and must end.
The bill also protects elderly and disabled persons from tax
liability on workers provided to them under government programs.
H.R. 5719 enhances the fairness of our tax code and deserves this
House's total support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Today is Tax Day, Madam Speaker, and all across the
country, millions of Americans will wait patiently, or not so
patiently, in line at the local post office, making sure that their
taxes are postmarked by the midnight deadline.
Having recently struggled through the process of filling out my own
tax forms, I share the frustrations of millions of American taxpayers,
not just with the amount of taxes that we have to pay, but with the
dizzying maze of forms, worksheets and calculations required by the IRS
as well.
But instead of working together in a bipartisan way to simplify the
process and enhance taxpayers rights, the majority has chosen to bring
forward a partisan, political bill that has already drawn a veto threat
from the administration, and is almost certainly ``dead on arrival'' in
the other body.
To be sure, this legislation does contain a number of positive, pro-
taxpayer provisions, most of which have already passed the House last
year in an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis as part of H.R. 1677.
Unfortunately for this House, and for taxpayers across the country, the
majority has now abandoned that commonsense bipartisan approach that we
brought to last year's bill.
Instead the majority has included a pair of highly controversial
proposals that kill any hope of bipartisan cooperation, one imposing a
new substantiation requirements on withdrawals from health savings
accounts, and another cutting off the ability of carefully selected
private businesses to assist the IRS in collecting delinquent tax debt.
Over the course of today's debate, we'll hear much more about the
concerns that many Members have about the HSA provision, a provision
that was not subject to a single hearing in the Ways and Means
Committee, and was inserted into the bill just prior to mark-up without
any real understanding of the potential consequences.
So let me take a moment to focus on the other provision of concern,
the proposal to repeal the IRS's authority to work with private
collection agencies to ensure that acknowledged tax debt is actually
paid.
For some Members of this body on both sides of the debate, this
particular issue is simple and is simply about policy. For them, it's
an abstract question about whether these private collection agencies,
so called PCAs, should be able to play a limited supplementary role in
ensuring that undisputed tax debts are, in fact, paid.
As we debate this particular issue yet again this afternoon, we'll
hear again persuasive evidence making clear just how successful the PCA
program has already been in narrowing the tax gap, and while carefully
protecting taxpayers rights. And we will also hear how much additional
promise this program holds for the future if it's allowed to continue.
But for me and the area I represent, Western New York, the issue is
much more than an abstract policy debate. It's also about jobs. As the
Member of Congress who represents rural Wyoming County in Western New
York, I'm actually more familiar than most Members with the work that
PCAs do. After all, the largest single private employer in Wyoming
County, Pioneer Credit Recovery, is one of the only two companies
nationwide that the IRS has selected to help get this important program
underway.
Madam Speaker, Pioneer Credit is a highly respected local business
that has created more than 1,400 high-paying jobs for families living
in either my district or neighboring districts around Buffalo and
Rochester. And as my fellow Members of Western New York's Congressional
Delegation know, these jobs have been created in a region that has
faced serious economic challenges.
This IRS contract has allowed Pioneer Credit to turn an empty
warehouse in Perry, New York into a thriving job center for newly hired
employees. In short, it's been a great economic success story in part
of Western New York that has desperately needed it.
As someone who fought to give the IRS the authority to partner with
these private companies in the first place, I am deeply troubled that
the new majority is once again threatening to deauthorize this
important program just as it's getting underway.
If this program is allowed to continue, Pioneer Credit will have the
opportunity to compete for future IRS contracts that could create many
additional jobs in the area of Western New York that I represent.
Killing this program, on the other hand, would cost my constituents
real jobs at a time when Congress should be working to expand
employment opportunities, particularly in hard-hit areas that are
struggling economically.
I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that under the Democrats
convoluted PAYGO rules, proposals that reduce anticipated Federal
revenues must be offset by other provisions that raise revenue. As a
result, today's

[[Page H2311]]

proposal to eliminate the PCA program, a program that is currently
expected to bring in more than a half billion dollars to the Federal
Treasury, over the next decade, also requires them to raise Federal
revenue or taxes by the same amount somewhere else. That's right. The
majority is raising taxes by a half a billion dollars today in order to
eliminate the very program that's helping us to collect undisputed tax
debts, more effectively. Only in Washington, Madam Speaker, only in
Washington.
This bill is wrong on policy, it's wrong on job creation and it's on
the way to mark April 15 for America's hard-working taxpayers.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Georgia and thank him for
his leadership on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. It's a set of commonsense
reforms designed to make the Tax Code a little more consumer friendly
for hardworking Americans.
If the IRS has reason to believe that you've been a victim of
identity theft, this bill says the IRS should let you know.
If you're entitled to an unclaimed refund, this bill empowers the IRS
to do more to find you.
And if you need help with your taxes, this bill lets the IRS refer
you to a qualified taxpayer clinic that can provide assistance.
So whether it's from eliminating nuisance paperwork to publicizing
the earned income tax credit to clamping down on predatory ``refund
anticipation loans,'' this bill, time and again, sides with the
taxpayer.
I'm particularly pleased that it includes legislation many of us have
worked on to end the practice of bounty hunting and terminate the
program of contracting out the collection of taxes to private debt
collectors.
Proponents of this program say it's necessary to close the tax gap.
The facts just say they're wrong. The program, to date, hasn't returned
a single dime of additional revenue to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, so
far as we gather here today, it's been a revenue loser, an ideological
driven black hole that has sucked $50 million out of the Treasury last
year alone. And we would have been able to raise, and this is according
to both Republican and IRS commissioners, we would have been able to
raise $1.4 billion in revenue from people who hadn't paid taxes if we'd
simply hired more IRS agents to do the job. And that's also the
testimony of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the Department of
Treasury. That's the person whose job it is to look out for the
taxpayers, and she testified this is a bad deal for taxpayers. We
should get rid of it.
And we shouldn't be surprised. We had a similar program in the 1990s
that was ended because of abusive practices, and it failed to collect
the money. Let's learn from history. Let's adopt this legislation.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague on the Ways and Mean Committee from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), an
expert on HSAs and other matters for consideration today.

{time} 1645

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, why are we here? We're here
because it's Tax Day and the majority decided they had to have a tax
bill to come to the floor to pass on Tax Day.
There are some good provisions in this bill. I want to talk about one
provision that is not a good provision. That's what we call HSA
substantiation. What that basically means is without a single hearing,
the majority wants to bring these new red-taped complicated rules to
health savings accounts so that every time somebody goes and makes a
health care purchase that's under the deductible, they have to first
get permission from their banker or from the government before they do
it. That's essentially what substantiation does.
Now, we've heard from banks, from the credit unions, from the NFIB
and the small businesses. They're all saying, we're not going to do it
anymore. We're not going to offer HSAs to our clients.
Madam Speaker, the key with health savings accounts is that people
can save tax free for their out-of-pocket health care savings. Why on
earth would we want to bring a bill to the floor which we know will
reduce the use of health savings accounts?
The goal of this Congress ought to be to make health care more
accessible and more affordable. Unfortunately, this bill goes in the
wrong direction. So we want to inflict all of this red tape that we
don't inflict on individual retirement accounts or on home equity lines
of credits on this, and this will make it harder for people to save tax
free for health care. It will tie them up in red tape. It will say to
the banks and credit unions that offer these things, don't offer them
anymore, and more to the point, we're doing this clumsy legislating
without having had one hearing in the Ways and Means Committee.
More to the point, Madam Speaker, is this. The market is already
fulfilling the need to have better recordkeeping. The market is already
showing us they can do this without this law. But if you impose this
law, as this bill does, guess what's going to happen? People in rural
America, people in some small towns, people in Janesville, Wisconsin,
they won't be able to subscribe to this law. Their retailers don't have
the technology that's being required here. So you're going to leave
rural America, small town America out, and only urban areas can comply
with this.
This is not good legislating. This has not been seen through. No
foresight. No hearings. More to the point, it's going to make it harder
for people in rural and small towns to save tax tree for health care.
It's going to make it harder for anybody to save tax free for health
care. This is going to raise health care costs, and it is going to make
it harder for patients to really get control of their health care
destiny.
And that is why this bill should be defeated. For this piece of
policy alone, this bill should be defeated because it was not thought
through. It was slammed in there at the last minute, and that is enough
of a reason that on this day, on Tax Day, we should not be telling the
American people, we're going to raise your taxes if you want to go buy
health care. That's wrong, but that's what this bill does; and I think
we should reject this bill for that reason alone.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a wonderful friend who is a
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Georgia's leadership of the Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and
Means Committee.
A couple of things to respond to.
The matter before us involves a pay-for, because unlike much of the
work of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, this
majority pays for things that cost the Treasury.
Now, the HSA issue he just raised involves tax-free accounts and
savings accounts to be used for health care. We ask that there be some
verification to show the money withdrawn was spent for health care.
That's all. What drives us to this is a report that we had from one
account manager that shows these funds being withdrawn for everything
from body shop repair to fast food restaurants.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. Sure I will yield.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. As the gentleman knows, this is their money,
and if they choose to withdraw their money for non-health care reasons,
they pay taxes.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I only have 2 minutes, this HSA,
I believe the gentleman would agree, in fact I think he said it in his
comments, is for the cost of health care. It gives a tax incentive
cost, a tax assistance to taxpayers for health care costs, not for body
shop costs. We don't tax incent body shop costs. So we would like to
shut that abuse down.
The question is legitimately raised. Is this too onerous? Absolutely
not. Many of us have flex savings accounts that are used for medical
costs. Now,

[[Page H2312]]

all we ask is that the same verification any Federal employee uses when
they make a withdrawal in their flex savings account would be used to
substantiate withdrawal from the health savings account. This isn't
inventing something new. We've done it. It works well.
Another feature of the bill that's drawn such objection is this
business of putting out of business the whole notion of private bill
collectors being loosed on our taxpayers to collect revenues owed the
Federal Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional minute.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I refer my colleagues to the Washington
Post, the front page story today, ``Collectors cost IRS more than they
raise.''
We have had, in fact, kind of the bill collection version of the $600
toilet seat for the old Pentagon contract procurements. This was
advertised to cost very little, $10 to $14 million, well now up to $70
million and counting, a multiple of what was initially advertised.
That's the set-up cost. They said it was going to bring all of this
money. Well, the reality is it has brought in only a fraction of the
money advertised.
And so on a net basis, this whole initiative to bring in money owed
us has cost us money. We've been shipping more money to contractors.
This is an administration and this is a minority that loves private
contractors. And if it costs the Federal Government on the net balance,
it doesn't matter because they just so ideologically love private
contractors.
We should pass this bill and end this failed experiment of private
debt collection.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I've been listening to some of my
colleagues, and I'm sure we'll have more on the Democratic side of the
aisle that have been such proponents of doing away with the collection.
I just want to remind some of them of a couple of things that we should
look at.
First, this is money that the IRS will not go after. It is part of
the goal that Congress said we will pursue to get this money, and it
was going to show a $1 billion over 10-year revenue.
Now, we have seen the start-up of PCAs, one in Iowa and one in New
York, after a very clear scrutiny by the IRS and by strong oversight of
the Congress. And there are start-up costs of the $50 million, as we're
beginning to see the program come under way, to pursue money that the
IRS either hasn't collected, can't collect, will not collect as the
PCAs are pursuing it.
And I have listened to a lot of people describe what they think they
understand of a PCA, but they have never really been in tune with it.
It kind of reminds me of somebody debating ATM legislation and never
actually used an ATM.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior member
of the Ways and Means Committee from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, as Americans send their checks to the IRS
today, they have a number of concerns. There are the dozens of tax
provisions that expired last year and have not yet been extended adding
to economic uncertainty. There is the inefficiency of many Federal
agencies resulting in waste of hard-earned tax dollars, and there are
the entitlement programs that threaten to double the Federal tax burden
over the coming decades if they are not reformed. All of these issues
Congress should be considering this Tax Day.
One complaint I have never heard from my constituents is that the IRS
doesn't ask them for enough information. Yet the legislation before us
would impose burdensome new reporting requirements on 5 million
Americans with health savings accounts. Although Congress has held no
hearings to determine whether misuse of HSA funds is a real problem,
these requirements would make HSAs less convenient for consumers and
could lead financial institutions to stop offering HSAs.
Ironically, this bill would also repeal a program that collects bad
tax debts. The majority's message seems to be that if you're not paying
your taxes, we will let you off the hook, but if you follow the rules,
we will increase your burden of compliance.
Madam Speaker, that is the wrong message to send this Tax Day. I urge
a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, no one on this side of the aisle
is suggesting that we all shouldn't pay our fair share.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Emanuel), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's comments
about fairness, one of the provisions in this legislation deals with
closing the loophole for KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary, that
used the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. And that is, it was
discovered that in fact KBR, they're a company that was doing its
operations in Iraq, was not paying and consciously set up a company in
the Cayman Islands, just a post office box, set up a company to avoid
paying Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, which is
how they became the low bid.
It is the company, by the way, I'm sure you remember this, that
served contaminated water to our troops, costing the taxpayers more
money to take care of the health of those troops.
They set up an operation in the Cayman Islands, and in fact, their
post office was Post Office Box 847, One Capital Place, 4th Floor,
Shedden Road, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, KY1-1103. And the reason
they were the low bidder? They didn't pay their fair share.
And the truth is the American people care about two things when it
comes to American taxes: Simplicity of the code and fairness. And this
is an example of the unfairness of our code.
In fact, if you look at the Ugland House in the Cayman Islands, one
building houses 12,000 companies who have established post office boxes
or ZIP codes or modems there, and the only purpose they're there for is
to avoid paying their fair share of their taxes. And one of the pieces
of this legislation is, in fact, to shut down the operation so
companies cannot get contracts doing government work here in the United
States, paid for by the taxpayers, whose sole purpose is to avoid
paying their fair share.
The company acknowledges that the reason they set up the Cayman
Islands was so they didn't pay Social Security, they didn't pay
unemployment, they didn't pay Medicare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. EMANUEL. And the way this was discovered was on a worker who was
laid off with 10,000 employees, went to go collect unemployment
insurance and was told no, you don't have the money for that because
you didn't pay insurance. He said no, I work for an American company,
and then discovered, in fact, he didn't work for an American company.
KBR was a company set up in the Cayman Islands for the purpose of
avoiding paying their fair share of taxes, and it is right here on
April 15, when Americans are facing bigger tax bills, higher costs for
health care, higher costs for education, higher costs for gasoline,
that in fact those companies that are servicing in Iraq pay their fair
share and not use the tax code to avoid their responsibility.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Health Committee of
Ways and Means from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, here we are on Tax Day, April 15, talking about a bill
called the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. A great title,
but this bill falls remarkably short.
What this Congress should be debating today is legislation to
simplify and reform the tax code. The tax code is over 67,000 pages
long. It takes taxpayers 6 billion hours and over $260 billion to
comply with current tax laws. That's unacceptable.
Instead of this bill, Congress needs to pass legislation to make
filing tax returns simpler and fairer. While more and more Americans
are demanding Congress make our tax laws easier to comply with, the
Ways and Means Committee has held only one hearing on tax reform since
the beginning of last year.

[[Page H2313]]

And just as the economy struggles in the face of problems in the
housing and the credit markets, rising gas and food prices and an up-
take on employment, the House Democrat budget proposes to hit families
with the largest tax increase in history.

{time} 1700

Instead of reforming the Tax Code and lowering the tax burden, the
bill before us ignores both those questions. And while there are some
good provisions in it, like I support the provision that no longer
requires employees to keep track of the cell phone calls they make on
their office cell phones, other measures in the bill make it
objectionable.
I reject the majority's attempts to impose new administrative burdens
on the use of health savings accounts. Millions of Americans are
enrolled in HSAs because they provide consumers with the ability to
affordably manage their own health care costs. H.R. 5719 will make it
harder for people to save for their own health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. HSAs already have a built-in enforcement
mechanism that seeks to ensure HSA funds are spent on qualified medical
expenses. If a person spends those dollars on a nonqualified expense,
they're subject to individual income taxes and a 10 percent penalty.
The IRS also has the right to audit HSA withdrawals.
Americans are concerned about the cost of health care. Before
Congress rushes to impose new burdens on HSAs, the one innovation that
helps patient-centered, individual health care, helps individuals take
control of their health care, we should find out first if there really
is a problem, and then, how we can fix it without restricting the
ability of consumers to take greater control of their health care
decision making.
I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I find no small amount of irony listening to our friends from the
other side of the aisle talk about complexity on Tax Day because for
the 12 years that they were in charge there was an explosion, hundreds
of thousands of additional words added to the IRS code; loopholes and
complexity, not simplification.
It is absolute hogwash that there are areas that the IRS won't go
after to collect and we have to use private collection agencies. They
are the people who decided to underfund the IRS. Testimony before our
committee was conclusive: The IRS-trained employees collect eight times
as much per person as these bounty hunters that they contract out. With
the minimum of a $70 million investment, we will raise over $1.4
billion.
Equally specious is the argument here that we're hearing about HSAs.
There are millions of Americans who have benefits, as my good friend
from North Dakota pointed out, flexible savings accounts. We have them
for our Federal employees. And all they have to do, however, is there
is some minimal verification. What they're proposing is that we just
ignore it and allow people to use it for car washes and country club
memberships and rely on an occasional audit, which is much more
difficult because they have cut back on the IRS. That's foolish. It
works for millions of Americans with flexible benefit accounts, there's
no problem doing it with HSAs.
It is time for us to move forward with these simple, commonsense
efforts, steps that make the IRS more effective. More money for the
taxpayers prevents inappropriate use of tax exempt money.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Well, I just want to make sure at least the taxpayers from the
countryside I come from realize that H.R. 5719, which we're
considering, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008,
really sounds good. It sounds real good on Tax Day, as I open my
remarks by saying that taxpayers are in line now or will be until
midnight tonight to have a postmarked April 15 date. But we know that
this legislation will face a steep consideration of some saying ``dead
on arrival'' in the other body. We've seen the administration have its
advisers threaten veto. And yet, while there were so many things that
we agreed upon in the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans and
Democrats, we have a bill that brings controversy, that brings another
one-House bill. It gets tough, as we move towards November of an
election year, to explain that we didn't get much done, but boy did we
have a lot of action on one-House bills.
I want to just share for the record here on this body what I did in
the Ways and Means hearing. Because I think there's two important
documents that my colleagues, as this debate goes today, and some of
the consideration of what will be difficult on seeing PCAs, as the
legislation may come to pass from this body, we will see difficult
sledding in the other body, as well as the administration, are two
reports.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration wrote one on
March 26, only weeks ago, that had inadequate security controls over
routers and switches that jeopardize sensitive taxpayer information. It
was done by the Inspector General. And I want to just report, because
we had it confirmed by representatives of the administration under our
examination that this, in fact, has occurred and it's in the report
which was submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. And it says,
``Impact to the Taxpayer: Because the IRS sends sensitive taxpayer and
administrative information across its networks, routers on the networks
must have sufficient security controls to deter and detect unauthorized
use. Access controls for IRS routers were not adequate, and reviews to
monitor security configuration changes were not conducted to identify
inappropriate use. A disgruntled employee, contractor or a hacker could
reconfigure routers and switches to disrupt computer operations and
steal taxpayer information in a number of ways, including diverting
information to unauthorized systems.''
Madam Speaker, that same very day, on March 26, the same Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a second report called,
``The Private Collection Agencies Adequately Protected Taxpayer Data.''
And this information also was confirmed under examination as we made
inquiries to the administration that confirmed that the reports exist,
and they were well aware of these findings as well. And on page 2 of
the Inspector General's report it said, ``We reviewed the computer
security controls over taxpayer data provided to the two current
PCAs,'' or private collection agencies for those maybe not following
the debate, ``and determined that the controls were adequate. In
particular, files were securely transmitted from the IRS to the
contractors and adequately secured on the contractor systems. In
addition work stations used by contractor collection personnel were
adequately controlled to prevent unauthorized copying of taxpayer
information to removable media or transfer via e-mail. The contractors
also maintained adequate audit trails and performed periodic reviews,
including reviews to identify unauthorized access to taxpayer data.''
Now, the response from the IRS, contained also on page two of the
Treasury Inspector General said, ``The key IRS management officials
reviewed the report prior to issuance and agreed to the results of the
review.''
We know that in the operation of PCAs, we are going to see the
collection pursuit of $500 million over that over the next 10 years.
And we know that if this legislation prevails, there is going to be a
tax increase of $500 million to pay for this under the majority's PAYGO
rules. And so as we continue the debate, make it clearly understood
that the pursuit of these PCAs was on proceeds that were not collected,
could not be collected, needed to be collected in order to put into the
Treasury this money owed by taxpayers to the government. And that as

[[Page H2314]]

we look at this legislation, what has brought the controversy to
uncontroversial legislation, legislation that both parties could agree
to, was the adding of HSA changes and dealing with the PCAs. My
colleagues need to consider the type of consequences we're seeing in
what will be a misguided change on PCA legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, my good friend, Congresswoman
Berkley, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. BERKLEY. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing me.
I don't have any long Treasury reports to read to you, and I'm not
here to tell you what should have been, what we could have done, should
have done, would have done. But I'm here to talk on behalf of H.R. 5719
because there are some important components and provisions of this bill
that, when taken together, will make future tax days more fair and less
strenuous for the average American taxpayer.
H.R. 5719 contains provisions to ensure that taxpayers receive all
the tax benefits they're entitled to. This bill will increase outreach
to help taxpayers benefit from the earned income tax credit and find
unclaimed refunds, effectively lowering taxes for many Americans. I
think this is a good provision.
This bill also prevents the IRS from using private debt collectors to
collect Federal income taxes. Private debt collectors have proven to be
poorly equipped for the job, actually costing the IRS and taxpayers 37
million more than they have collected. This change is an important move
to protect taxpayer privacy. And as a taxpayer and as a citizen, I want
the government and the IRS to do its job and not send this
responsibility out to someone else.
I'm also very supportive of a provision to postpone implementation of
the 3 percent withholding requirement on government payment to vendors.
This requirement will cause significant administrative and financial
burdens on local governments, unfairly penalizing companies, and
raising prices on consumers. I think this is a good provision in this
legislation.
The bill also helps protect taxpayers by requiring the IRS to notify
individuals if unlawful use of their identity is detected by cracking
down on Web sites that try to defraud people through use of the
official IRS logo.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield the gentlelady 15 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. All of these taken together aren't earth-shattering and
they're not going to change the way that we collect taxes in this
country, but it's going to help, and it's going to help millions of our
fellow Americans.
On Tax Day, let's pass something and do something positive for the
American people.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, my good friend, Mr. Crowley.
Mr. CROWLEY. I want to thank my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Lewis)
for yielding me this time.
My colleagues, this is a good bill, and I ask all my colleagues to
support this worthy effort.
And Chairman Lewis, I want to thank you personally, and your staff.
You went out of your way to include language that I had concerns of and
wanted to include in this bill to increase the access of eligible
taxpayers to the EITC, the earned income tax credit. So I want to
personally thank you and your staff for your outreach to our office and
including that. Ronald Reagan himself referred to the EITC as the
greatest anti-poverty program in the history of our country, so I think
it deserves worthy bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, we heard in testimony last week in the Committee on
Ways and Means from the Taxpayer Advocate of the United States that
identity fraud against taxpayers is skyrocketing. This bill establishes
some of the strongest protections for taxpayers against identity theft
scams, especially those at greatest risk of fraud, our seniors and
veterans filing this year to claim the economic stimulus rebate check.
But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Republican
colleagues and the Bush Administration, are adamantly opposed to this
taxpayer protection act because they're opposed to the offset that we
provide.

{time} 1715

No one can argue that some of my Republican colleagues
philosophically oppose paying for anything and support the continuation
of what I believe was 7 years of Republican economic theory of ``borrow
and spend.'' And in case you're keeping count, the results of the
Republican borrow and spend credit card economic policy is a $30,000
birth tax on every person born in this country today. In fact, in my
own home, it's at $90,000 because I have an 8-, 7-, and 2-year-old. I
can't imagine that they would be very happy if they understood what the
birth tax was that was placed upon them by irresponsible and reckless
fiscal policies over the last 7 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional minute to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, that's why Democrats are trying to be
responsible and we implemented the pay-as-you-go principles, meaning
all new tax cuts and new spending increases need to be paid for as we
move forward.
In regards to the health savings account, I really don't understand
the opposition here. What we're simply asking for is accountability. We
know that health savings accounts have been spent for country club
membership, massage parlors, women's lingerie shops, casinos and
gambling, dating and escort services.
Let's really put this all in perspective. What we're talking about is
accountability in health savings accounts. We're not saying they
shouldn't be used for health purposes, but they should be held
accountable.
People right now, hardworking, honest, faith-loving Americans that
want to donate to a charity or to their church with after-tax payments
have to account for that charitable contribution before they can take a
tax deduction. When it comes to health savings accounts, there is not
that requirement. And we're talking about pretax dollars on health
savings accounts. There's something wrong here. I wish my Republican
colleagues would better understand it. It's simply absurd that they
don't support simple accountability.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. CROWLEY. It is simply absurd to me that my Republican colleagues
can't understand that we're simply asking for accountability, that
we're not looking to eliminate them, that if they are using it for
legitimate health purposes, that's fine.
Now, I did note that the HSA, the Health Savings Account Council,
says that the IRS has the authority to audit these accounts. Are they
suggesting that the IRS audit every health savings account to make sure
that health savings accounts are being used for health reasons? I
daresay that the IRS is looking at probably more often than not the
charitable contributions that hardworking Americans make and making
sure that those are legitimate charities before they're able to deduct
them from their taxes.
So what we are looking for is a little balance here in terms of what
really are legitimate tax savings purposes in health savings accounts.
That's really simply what the Democrats are looking for.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have listened very carefully to my friend and colleague from New
York as he sees his views.
I thought maybe I might for the record just outline that I have a
copy of a letter that numerous groups sent in opposition to this
legislation, primarily due to HSAs, to both Chairman Rangel and Ranking
Member McCrery. And it leads off with the NFIB and goes down to the
National Taxpayers Union, and it has the U.S. Chamber and it has the
Retail Industry

[[Page H2315]]

Leaders Association, the National Retail Federation, the National
Restaurant Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and
so many others. And I will make it available in case some of my
colleagues haven't seen it.
This isn't something Republicans on this side of the aisle just kind
of dreamed up that there are problems that make this legislation
controversial with HSA legislation or with the PCAs. It's well
documented by the experts that are using the program.
I also think, rather than some of my colleagues interpreting what the
administration may have for support or rejection of the legislation,
maybe I should read into the Record exactly what the Statement of
Administration Policy is on H.R. 5719 so that we all know what the
administration's concerns are.
And for the record: ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719,
the so-called `Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008.' The
bill includes provisions that would impose new administrative burdens
on the trustees of health savings accounts. These new burdens on HSA
administrators are unnecessary for efficient tax administration,
inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their
inception, and could undermine efforts by employers, individuals, and
insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health outcomes by
empowering consumers to take greater control of health care decision
making. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these
provisions, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.
``Also, the administration strongly opposes provisions of the bill
that would repeal the current statutory authorization for the Internal
Revenue Service private debt collection program. As of February 2008,
over 98,000 cases have been referred to contractors, representing over
$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program would
result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the next 10 years,
according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. These are tax
dollars that are legally owed to the government and are otherwise very
unlikely to be collected by the IRS due to workload demands. As noted
in previous Statements of Administration Policy, the administration
strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not consistent
with the administration's commitment to a balanced approach toward
improving taxpayer compliance and collecting outstanding tax
liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these
provisions, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill.''
That is a Statement of Administration Policy on the record relative
to this.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I now would yield to my colleague from New York for a
question.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I note that the gentleman made reference to the fact
that the legislation, or at least the interpretation of the
administration, that the legislation places onerous responsibilities on
the trustees of the HSAs.
Where in the legislation does it say that?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I will ask you to look that up, and at a later
time I will yield and you can point it out in my record.
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. REYNOLDS. One more time.
Mr. CROWLEY. I just would point to the record that, in fact, it is
not the responsibility of the trustees but of the individual who opens
an HSA account that we're placing the burden on, that they prove that
the HSA account is for legitimate medical purposes.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman.
I just think it's important we look at this. First, I heard the
debate coming from the majority, from the gentleman, that outlined his
interpretation of why the administration was opposed to the bill. I
listened carefully. I made a decision to read into the Record exactly
what the administration's policy position was on this so that it was no
longer an interpretation from a Member of Congress but exactly in
written word what the administration said relative to this bill.
And I think while we're looking at other aspects of this legislation,
we do know the following: That the administration is going to veto this
legislation, that we also know it has difficult sledding in the other
body. And it has in the past because there's a track record, that it
appears just with PCA alone, let alone some of the concerns that have
been put forth in the letter that I read from earlier on HSAs, that we
now have another one-House bill being trumped up and laid out on Tax
Day.
And I will say the majority is superb in showmanship. We seem to be
able to move legislation to the floor on significant days. Today is tax
legislation on Tax Day, April 15.
But I also know that the public is not going to be confused by the
fact that while we trump up an extravaganza of legislation on special
days, today tax legislation on April 15, that the voters are going to
take a real hard look at what really got done, what has gotten through,
what was made better for America. And, again, we have another one-House
bill that just, sadly, had too much partisanship in it and fell away.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would like to note that the
NFIB has endorsed and supported H.R. 5719. Passage of H.R. 5719 will be
considered a key vote for the NFIB.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the chairman for the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5719, the
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008.
Let me tell my colleagues that this bill simply closes a lot of
loopholes that were created when my Republican friends controlled this
Congress in the majority years ago and it also addresses some of the
disastrous Bush administration policies that were adopted by my friends
the Republicans when they were in the majority. But they're no longer
in the majority this year.
Let me tell you what this is all about. My Republican friends and the
Bush administration love to privatize. They wanted to privatize Social
Security. Remember that? They wanted to privatize prescription drugs,
and they got away with it, and that's why it's so expensive and
convoluted. They wanted to privatize health care at Walter Reed
Hospital, and you know the disasters that happened there. Trying to
privatize the delivery of the United States mail; privatize security in
Iraq by letting private contractors handle these things for the U.S.
Army. Blackwater and Halliburton, sound familiar?
Well, one of the things that this bill that we're passing today in
the House will do will be to eliminate one of the disastrous Bush and
Republican policies that they inserted in a 2004 bill. That policy was
where they slashed the number of IRS tax collectors, and then they
said, oh, my gosh, we can't collect enough taxes; so you know what
we'll do? We'll privatize the collection of taxes. This was after they
removed the number of IRS tax collectors. They said we'll hire private
folks to collect taxes, but we'll pay them eight times more than it
would cost a Federal Government employee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman.
So can you imagine, Madam Speaker, they slashed IRS collectors from
people who owed taxes, slashed the tax collectors, and wanted to
privatize it and pay eight times more to their friends in private
industry to do it. Eight times more. It only took now when the
Democrats are in control of the House that we are able now to pass this
bill today to end that program.
And when my friend from New York on the other side of the aisle says,
well, you know, it's only a one-House bill because the Senate won't
approve this, ask yourself why that is. Because there are only 51
Democrat Senators in the Senate, and you need 60 votes in the Senate to
overcome a filibuster. We

[[Page H2316]]

only have 51 Democrats in the Senate. We can't get 9 Republicans to get
rid of this ridiculously wasteful program of privatizing tax
collection. So it's like that terrible story of the kid who kills his
parents and pleads for mercy from the Court because he's an orphan.
They slashed the tax collectors. Then they gave it to their cronies.
Now they say they can't get Republicans to help us fix this problem
that they created. Fortunately, the House has a majority that will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30
seconds.
Mr. ROTHMAN. So do you get, my colleagues, the hypocrisy? They
slashed the tax collectors, paid eight times more to this private
contractor cronies, and then when we get a Democratic majority in the
House to pass this to eliminate this wasteful program, they say it
won't pass the Senate. Because the Republicans in the Senate won't do
it, and we need them to add up to the 60 votes to avoid the Republican
filibuster, which they expect to do, to filibuster getting rid of this
privatization of tax collection.
I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I think I heard my colleague when he
said that Democrats are in the majority in this body, Democrats are in
the majority in the other body, but it's the Republicans' fault that
this legislation isn't going to happen.
Now, I have explained a lot of tough, challenging things to my
constituents, but I don't think they're going to buy that. It's just
another one-House bill that is going to the other body and going to see
death. It isn't going to see the light of day.

{time} 1730

Now, moving to my colleague from New York who asked me the question.
I didn't think I could provide the answer to his question quite as soon
as I could, and saving him looking it up, because I assume as he went
off the floor, he might be looking up this. I want to go back again to
the statement of administration policy. The bill includes provisions
that would impose new administrative burdens on the trustees of health
savings accounts. That is what the administration said in their veto
threat.
Now on the bill as reported out of committee by the majority, page
22, line 7, 8 and 9 to my colleagues, says the trustee of the health
savings account shall make a report regarding such account to the
Secretary and account beneficiary setting forth. So I want everyone to
know, including my colleague who asked the question, it is clear in
your bill that you set forth that the HSA trustees would have new
administrative burdens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Financial Services
Committee, my friend, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. To my distinguished colleague from Georgia, I
want to commend you on your excellent leadership on this very, very
important and timely piece of legislation. A lot has been said here
today. The two points of contention that the other side has brought
have been in two areas. And let me just speak to those directly so that
we can get to the facts of the matter.
Now the other side says that they are opposed to the health savings
accounts compliance. Now, what we are saying on our side is this: The
health savings accounts are set up for the purpose of helping our
constituents with health care services. Now if that is the case, then
it is very important that we set up a mechanism so that we can check
the abuses of that. They are not set up for them to go and to use those
accounts for massage parlors, for country clubs, for other issues and
areas, and escort services.
So it is important for us to be able to simply do this. The bill
simply requires the reporting of a holder of the health service account
of any funds used for nonhealth care purposes in order to reduce the
tax gap. That's simple.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the American people are holding on by
their fingernails in this terrible economy. And you may laugh and scorn
about this being April 15. Of course it is April 15. And it is a day
that the American people's minds are totally focused on their personal
finances. And it is important that this House of Representatives
respond in a way that responds to that interest. And so we are closing
the gap.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield an
additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. So it is very important. And let me get to the
other area very quickly, and that is the area of these private
contractors. We have received complaint after complaint after complaint
from your constituents and our constituents who have been abused by
calls. Let me give you one example of an elderly couple that was called
150 times, Madam Speaker, including five times in one day, asking for a
taxpayer. And it comes to find out that they are innocent.
Again, the GAO found out that debt collectors were placing over 1
million calls to innocent people just to reach 35,000 taxpayers. The
Federal Trade Commission had 130 complaints as of last year giving
unaccountable private tax collectors the right to look into and examine
personal financial information of our taxpayers. It is wrong.
Now let me tell you this, that the commissioner of the IRS himself,
Mr. Douglas Sherman, has asked for this legislation. Madam Speaker, I
just simply say that if the IRS is asking for this, that they could do
a better job, they are the ones who we are holding responsible. We
should make sure we pass this legislation and let the IRS do their job
of collecting the taxes and not hand it off to these private bounty
hunters.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire on the amount of time
left, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The distinguished gentleman from New York
has 1 minute remaining. The distinguished gentleman from Georgia has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from North Dakota, (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I want to begin my remarks by commending the fine job Mr. Reynolds
has done today. He has indicated that this legislation uniquely affects
him because many of the people at the Pioneer Call Center, a private
debt collector hired to collect this debt, are in his district. And I
think we all recognize he has done a fine job in fighting for that
business activity in his district today. He has given it everything he
has, and I commend him for the job he has done.
But the reality in the policy context is summed up in a simple
headline in today's Washington Post, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than
They Raise.'' Why in the world would we want to continue with an
arrangement like that? But there are many other parts of this bill that
are simplifying the process and are helpful to taxpayers. And that is
why we have the support of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers
and Treasurers, the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Citizens for Tax Justice, National Consumer League, Consumer
Federation of America, and a late-breaking one. In fact, this
organization has been mentioned on both lists, the NFIB.
Mr. Reynolds has indicated they were opposed to the bill. This is
probably a development that broke later than Mr. Reynolds' information.
But in fact, they are for the bill and indicate in a ``key vote alert''
that they will be scoring this as a key vote. They indicate that the
``provisions in this legislation seek to enact simpler tax rules and
reduce the paperwork burden associated with tax compliance.''
They talk about a few provisions. One of them is that right now we
have an onerous paperwork requirement on employers providing cell
phones to employees for business purposes. I commend my Republican
colleague on Ways and Means, Sam Johnson, for bringing this to our
attention. I was pleased to cosponsor legislation with him now included
in the bill that

[[Page H2317]]

makes this paperwork requirement go away.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North Dakota
has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And so including the Pomeroy-Johnson or the Johnson-Pomeroy bill in
this I think was an important feature to the NFIB deliberation that
this is indeed lessening paperwork requirements on small employers, and
therefore they support it. They do cite a couple of other provisions,
another provision of this legislation amending a recent change to the
Tax Code that helps tax preparers better assist their clients by
changing an established higher standard of reporting for preparers.
That creates a potential conflict of interest between clients and
themselves. That is addressed in this legislation.
And they also talk about the legislation including a 1-year delay of
the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement by Federal,
State and local governments on payments for goods and services which
puts both an administrative burden on all parties involved and a strain
on the daily operating cash flow of small businesses. There are other
provisions, as well, but I appreciate the NFIB's laying them out as
they have done on this letter.
In balance, this is a bill designed to help taxpayers. That is why we
passed it out of the Ways and Means Committee. That is why it is before
us on Tax Day. We urge its adoption.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman
is. I would proceed and then have you close if you are ready.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we are ready to close.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia who has done a
magnificent job of managing his time, and I've enjoyed working with
him.
Madam Speaker, today represents yet another missed opportunity on the
floor of this House. We could have approached the issues of taxpayer
rights and tax simplification in a bipartisan way just as we did last
year. But with the election season now in full swing, the majority
seems more interested in staging political theater than in actually
getting something done for hardworking, middle-class taxpayers. This
House and this country deserve more, especially on April 15, Tax Day. I
urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York. I enjoyed working with him on this bill. There being no
more speakers, I will close, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5719 is good. It is good. It is good for the
taxpayers. And today, when so many people are filing their tax return,
we should let them know that we are looking out for them, giving them
protections they need and support that they deserve.
This is a good bill. This is a necessary bill.
The private debt collection program is an insult to the American
taxpayers and our Federal tax system. It violates the public trust, and
this bill will bring it to an end. It must end.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, today the House considers
legislation related to the burdens placed on everyday taxpayers--the
Taxpayer Assistance & Simplification Act. This bill includes a number
of good provisions, of which I am supportive. However, the bill also
includes a provision which would cost Eastern Iowa hundreds of jobs.
While there are various, well-thought-out taxpayer protections in this
bill, they do not outweigh the negative impact this bill would have on
jobs in the First District. For this reason, I intend to oppose H.R.
5719.
Currently, the Internal Revenue Service is allowed to contract with
outside agencies for assistance in collecting overdue taxes. After a
rigorous competitive bidding process for these contracts, an Eastern
Iowa company was fortunate enough to receive one of the contracts, and
has been hard at work ever since. While nobody likes to defend the tax
man, the fact is, this company employs more than 625 people in Waterloo
and another 200 in West Des Moines.
Unfortunately, the bill on the floor today includes a provision that
would threaten these Waterloo and West Des Moines jobs. This provision
would disallow any future contracts, which could directly result in the
loss of hundreds of Iowa jobs. As the Representative of Iowa's First
District, I cannot support the elimination of these jobs.
While I intend to vote against this bill due to this provision, I
would like to stress my support for other provisions in this bill:
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS
to notify taxpayers who may have had their identity stolen. It is
unfortunate that the IRS does not already provide this notification,
and I believe that protecting the identities of American taxpayers
should be a primary goal of government.
I am supportive of the provisions in this bill that strengthen
additional protections against identity theft, by increasing the
penalties for those who mislead our citizens in order to steal private
information. Identity theft is a very serious problem, and I am glad
Congress is working to help protect Americans from this growing
epidemic.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that ensures elderly
and disabled individuals receiving in-home care are not subject to
employment tax provisions. This is a much-needed change that helps
protect our senior citizens and disabled citizens.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill to establish a grant
program to expand and improve income tax assistance programs to provide
services to taxpayers. I am also glad to see that the bill allows IRS
employees to refer taxpayers needing assistance with tax cases to
taxpayer clinics. As an ardent supporter of tax simplification, this
provision ensures help is available to those having trouble with the
very complicated process of filing taxes. Just last night I passed H.R.
3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, out of the
House. This bill would greatly simplify income tax forms and documents,
but until my bill becomes law, these taxpayer assistance clinics will
continue to provide valuable services to taxpayers as tax day
approaches.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that requires the IRS
to notify taxpayers if they are potentially eligible for the
Earned Income Tax Credit. This is a good tax credit that should be
utilized by everyone who qualifies, and I believe the IRS should help
make sure that those who are eligible receive the full benefit.

I am supportive of the provision in this bill that looks into the
feasibility of providing tax refunds on debit cards. This could create
a more convenient process of receiving tax refunds for many taxpayers.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill which delays the
requirement that Federal, State, and local governments withhold 3
percent from many government payments for goods or services. This 3
percent withholding is bad for small businesses and creates a
bureaucratic mess, and I believe this withholding should be eliminated.
I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 1023, which would completely repeal the 3
percent withholding.
I am supportive of the provision in this bill that eliminates the
requirement for individuals and small businesses to keep onerous
records of calls made on cell phones to substantiate business use of
such devices. I have heard from employers in Iowa's First District
about the administrative burden that this creates, and I am glad
Congress is reducing this burden.
I am supportive of closing the loophole that allows foreign
subsidiaries of U.S. companies, performing services as American
companies, to avoid paying taxes. This loophole results in a higher tax
burden being placed on America's working families, so I am glad this
bill takes this action.
Finally, I am supportive of the provision that helps protect against
predatory lending by barring the IRS from providing certain services to
companies that offer refund anticipation loans, if the IRS determines
that the company charges predatory rates.
Again, I believe that many of the provision in the Taxpayer
Assistance & Simplification Act will help protect American taxpayers
and simplify the process of filing taxes. However, these good parts of
the bill do not outweigh the direct, negative impact that the bill
would have on jobs in Iowa's First District, which is why I oppose this
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 5719, ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008'',
introduced by my good friend from New York, Representative Charles
Rangel.

Cost as Compared to the War in Iraq

This bill is estimated to cost $22 million dollars over the next 10
years. Before my Republican colleagues balk at this number I want to
remind them over the past year, the Administration requested a total
of $195.5 billion for FY 2008 emergency war funds at three times--in
its original FY 2008 request in February 2008, in an amendment for Mine
Resistant Ambush Program (MRAP) vehicles on July 31, 2008, and in an
amended request to cover

[[Page H2318]]

additional costs submitted on October 22, 2008. Thus far, we have
appropriated $90.4 billion for war-related costs of the Defense
Department, State/U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, and
the Veterans' Administration including funds in both regular and
emergency appropriations acts. As of the enactment of the FY 2008
Consolidated Appropriations, this brings the total for funds
appropriated to date to $700 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan
and enhanced security.

Let me be clear, we must support our troops and we must defend our
Nation, but at a time when this country's economy is spiraling
downward, this tax bill will impact Americans regardless of their
political affiliation providing assistance at time when they most need
it.

Summary of H.R. 5719

Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008--Amends the
Internal Revenue Code to: (1) modify penalty provisions for tax return
preparers who take an unreasonable position in the preparation of a tax
return causing an underpayment of tax; (2) eliminate certain
restrictions on the tax deduction for employee use of cellular
telephones; (3) exempt recipients of home care services from liability
for employment taxes for payments made to home care service providers;
(4) authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make grants for
volunteer income tax assistance programs; (5) require written notice to
taxpayers of eligibility for the earned income tax credit; (6) place
restrictions on information relating to refund anticipation loans; (7)
require the Secretary to notify a taxpayer of any unauthorized use of
such taxpayer's identity (suspected identity theft) uncovered during an
tax investigation; (8) repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue
Service, IRS, to enter into private debt collection contracts; (9)
extend the period during which the IRS may return property seized in a
wrongful tax levy; and (10) increase penalties for failures to provide
correct tax information and to file partnership or S corporation tax
returns.
This bill delays until 2012 the 3 percent withholding requirement on
government payments to contractors providing goods and services. It
also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a feasibility
study on alternative means of delivering tax refunds. H.R. 5719 seeks
to expand the prohibitions against the misuse of Department of the
Treasury names and symbols to include misuse on an Internet domain
address.

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 a credit to the top 2 percent 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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
examine this bill in its entirety and recognize that it benefits all
Americans. I fully support what Representative Rangel and the Committee
on Ways and Means has done to alleviate some of the burden on
taxpayers.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very
timely and important measure. Its enactment will make a number of
worthwhile changes in the current tax laws and the policies of the
Internal Revenue Service, IRS.
To protect people against identity theft, it will require the IRS to
notify a taxpayer if IRS finds that someone else may have made
unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity.
It will increase both the civil and criminal penalties that can be
imposed on those who use misleading websites that imitate to seek to
get personal information. This is important because people are losing
thousands of dollars in tax refunds to such frauds.
It will strengthen IRS outreach to make sure that people know that
they are entitled to tax refunds or to payments under the Earned Income
Tax Credit, EITC. It would also permit the IRS to refer these taxpayers
to low income tax clinics and increase funding for those clinics, and
strengthen taxpayer protections from ``predatory'' providers of refund
anticipation loans. And it clarifies that the IRS can use its website
to publicize unclaimed taxpayer refunds.
To help small businesses, the bill will eliminate the outdated
requirement to maintain and submit detailed call records to
substantiate business use of employer-provided cell phones.
Of great importance to State and local governments--including every
county in Colorado--it will delay for one year the imposition of a 3
percent withholding requirement on government payments for goods and
services made after December 31, 2010.
Further, to protect all of us, the bill includes the ``Fair Share
Act,'' which closes a loophole that now allows government contractors
to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
An example of how the current law could permit this was recently
reported in the press account of how a company operating under Federal
contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq has listed the people doing
that work as being employees of a subsidiary company based in the
Cayman Islands. As a result, while people formally employed by the
company with the Federal contract would be subject to the 15.3 percent
payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare (half technically paid by
the employer, the other half technically paid by employees), that is
not the case with people who are counted as working for a foreign
company. This is not fair or just. It should not be permissible, and
this bill would stop it by closing the loophole.
In addition, the bill would strengthen accountability and protect
taxpayers by repealing the authorization for the Internal Revenue
Service to use private contractors to collect Federal income taxes.
Just today, the press is reporting that this program, while perhaps
well-intentioned, has cost the government--that is, the taxpayers--some
$37 million more than the total amount of taxes it has collected, while
the contractors have collected commissions of up to 24 percent for
their efforts. The program has been marked by harassment, abusive
calling, and violations of taxpayer rights and disclosure protections.
The Government Accountability Office has reported that debt collectors
placed over one million calls, many to innocent people, trying to reach
35,000 taxpayers and the Federal Trade Commission reports that as of
last year it had received 130 complaints and the National Taxpayer
Advocate has counted many more. The House has already twice voted to
end this private collection program, and we should do so again today.

Madam Speaker, some have criticized this bill because it includes
measures to implement the requirement that taxes be paid on funds
withdrawn from a Health Savings account for purposes other than those
related to health care. I think the purpose of these provisions is
appropriate, but it may be that they could be more finely-tuned in
order to achieve that purpose in a better way--something that may occur
as the legislative process proceeds. In any event, I am not convinced
that whatever shortcomings there may be in that or other parts of the
bill are sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the rest of the
legislation.
Overall, this is a good bill that will help the taxpayers and our
country, and I urge its passage.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition
to H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and the Simplification Act of
2008. While this bill has some good provisions, such as the delayed
implementation of the 3-percent withholding on Government contracts,
the bad provisions simply outweigh the good. Specifically, I am
troubled by the section that would alter reporting requirements for
Health Savings Account, HSA, owners.
This bill would require individuals using HSAs to provide exhaustive
documentation of their medical expenses in order to qualify as a tax-
exempt expense. More than 5 million Americans are taking advantage of
these accounts, and approximately 25 percent of HSA owners had no
health insurance prior to their participation. Currently, every HSA
account holder must file specific tax forms to provide details about
spending from the account. We must expand this program so we can help
families afford healthcare coverage and bring healthcare costs down.
Requiring unnecessary and duplicative paperwork is not the right way to
accomplish this goal.
HSAs are a very valuable asset to many of my constituents. The
manufacturing industry is one of the premier sources of jobs in my
district, and most of these manufacturing entities are small in nature.
In fact, approximately 93 percent of the more than 1,500 manufacturing
firms in my district employ less than 100 people. Employees of these
small businesses are the primary beneficiaries of HSAs. In a time when
the cost of health care is sharply rising, it is crucial for us to
promote the use of innovative health care products such as HSAs,
helping families afford the health care they

[[Page H2319]]

need. I am concerned that we will inevitably deter these families from
utilizing HSAs by adding such draconian reporting requirements for HSA
owners. This will ultimately increase the cost of health care for a
large number of my constituents who currently take advantage of this
valuable product.
It is also worth noting that the best assistance we could provide to
taxpayers is to protect them from the largest tax increase in American
history. Sadly, many of my colleagues are more interested in dealing
with minutia in the Tax Code rather than addressing the looming massive
tax hike. Families in my district in Michigan, home of this country's
worst economy, simply cannot afford to pay any more in taxes. A tax
increase of this size would devastate families struggling with sky-high
unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and rising gas prices. It would add
insult to injury to ask them to pay more to this Government as well.
A tax increase of this scope would also be devastating for job
providers and small businesses, This Congress should be doing
everything it can to be helping our economy by creating jobs and
encouraging growth. Dramatically raising taxes would do just the
opposite.
Madam Speaker, implementing the largest tax increase in American
history is a slap in the face to all the families currently struggling
to make ends meet. It has been made abundantly clear today who stands
with working families and who stands with wasteful Washington spending.
I, for one, stand with the hard working men and women of Michigan and
across this great land.
Mr. CANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose a provision in this
bill that will discourage the use of HSAs. HSAs are a new and
innovative product in the health insurance field. Their glowing track
record promises a tremendous breakthrough in the effort to expand and
improve health care. In 3 short years, we have seen these accounts grow
to cover 4.4 million people, and will likely reach 6 million when the
new numbers come out next month.
For those Americans who need health care most, HSAs are working. Of
HSA applicants, 43 percent did not indicate previous insurance when
they signed up, and 66 percent of HSA account holders are families with
children. HSA users have demonstrated a greater likelihood to seek
preventive care, something we have always strived to achieve across the
entire health arena. And, one-third of small employers who now offer
HSAs did not previously offer insurance.
We need to be looking for bipartisan ways to help people get access
to affordable health care, not take it away from them.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 5719. It is fitting that we are debating a bill that provides
much needed assistance for low and moderate income taxpayers. The
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplfication Act recognizes the need for
enhanced financial literacy for those individuals by authorizing an
annual $10 million grant for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
programs and increases the authorization levels for grants targeted to
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
These free taxpayer assistance programs walk these individuals
through what can be a daunting tax preparation process and alert them
to assistance they may be eligible for.
A provision of particular importance to me and the taxpayers in the
7th Congressional District is a requirement for IRS to notify taxpayers
of potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit for all open
tax years and directs the IRS to notify individuals who have not filed
a return, but who may be eligible for the credit based on previous
return information.
In Indianapolis, there are tens of thousands of individuals who
qualify for the credit who do not claim it. This credit assistance is
critically needed by many families in my district.
As an advocate for financial literacy I am pleased to lend my support
to this legislation that enables organizations to better reach out to
those low income individuals who have been hit so hard during this
turbulent time in our economy. I thank Chairman Rangel and my
colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for their hard and
thoughtful work on this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1102, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Herger

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HERGER. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Herger moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5719 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back promptly with the following amendment:

Add at the end the following new sections:

SEC. 20. DENIAL OF TAX EXEMPT INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO BONDS
OF SANCTUARY STATES AND CITIES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 103(c) (defining
State or local bond) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Such term shall not include any
obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof, if
such State or political subdivision has in effect a policy
(whether statutory or otherwise) specifying that employees of
such State or political subdivision are not required to
notify Federal officials of an alien who may be unlawfully
present in the United States.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 21. EFFORTS TO ADMINISTER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall increase the efforts of
the Internal Revenue Service to ensure, to the extent
possible, that aliens unlawfully present in the United States
are not allowed a credit under section 32 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to earned income).

Mr. HERGER (during the reading). I request unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion and a
Member in opposition to the motion will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, Federal law requires local governments to
cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities may turn over
individuals who have been apprehended if the police believe they are
not legally present in the United States.
Unfortunately, many local governments flaunt this requirement and
openly boast that they refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government
in helping to enforce our immigration laws establishing an
irresponsible precedent and frustrating our shared goal of having safe
and secure borders.
As you know, taxpayers all across the country subsidize local
governments through a provision of Federal law that permits States and
localities to issue debt that is exempt from Federal taxes.

{time} 1745

The motion presents the Members of Congress with a simple question:
Is it reasonable to put some strings on this subsidy?
If adopted, the motion would clarify that the Federal tax subsidy
does not apply to new debt issued by States or localities that declare
themselves by statute or other manner to be a sanctuary city for
illegal immigrants. In other words, having self-helped themselves out
of helping the Federal Government address the growing burden of illegal
immigrants, then they should not expect American taxpayers to subsidize
their debt.
Madam Speaker, on April 15, we are reminded again about the many
Americans who are playing by the rules, yet still feel the squeeze on
their family budgets, particularly at tax time. Isn't it only fair that
we ask our city mayors and county boards to do the same?
This brings me to the second piece of our motion to recommit. Many
American families benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. It has
helped millions of low-income families help make ends meet, though its
cost to the Treasury is not insubstantial. Studies have often showed
that the earned income tax credit is overclaimed by as much as 30
percent. In other words, many of those who receive the benefit are not
actually entitled to it.

[[Page H2320]]

As the underlying bill includes a provision directing the IRS to
conduct outreach to inform individuals that they may be eligible for
the earned income tax credit, the motion would add language directing
the IRS to improve its efforts to identify individuals who may be
ineligible for the EITC on account of their citizenship status.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this
motion to recommit. While I am greatly concerned about the message sent
by the underlying bill that somehow we are going to take away an
effective tool to ensure we all pay our fair share of taxes, this
motion helps correct that wrong-headed tilt by trying to prevent tax
benefits from going to illegal aliens and cities and States who shelter
them from our immigration laws.
I urge passage of the motion.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, we have just obtained the motion in terms
of trying to sort through the tax provisions, with an eye, among other
things, to wondering whether or not people holding bonds of
municipalities could suddenly find themselves with taxes they didn't
think they were going to have when they bought these bonds.
Trying to work our way through these, one word jumped out on this
motion to recommit that really has shut down all further analysis by
us, and that is the word ``promptly,'' because this is yet another one
of those motions to recommit that is designed for one purpose and one
purpose only, and that is to kill the bill they are trying to attach it
to. That is because this would take the Taxpayer Assistance and
Simplification Act that we want to pass than April 15th and pack it off
back to the Ways and Means Committee, dispensing any possibility of
passing it off the floor today. It is a procedural move by the minority
to try and stop us from moving forward with this legislation.
What is unfortunate about that is there are taxpayers that are going
to be benefited, benefited substantially, by this legislation, small
businesses that right now are subject to IRS audit exposure if they are
not keeping detailed call records on cell phones that they give their
employees. We want to take this relief away through this motion to
recommit? I don't think so.
We go through so many positive, taxpayer-friendly provisions in this
bill, provisions that have received the support of so many diverse
organizations, from the League of Cities, Association of Mayors, NFIB
and Consumers Federation of America, it would take that and take it off
the table today, preventing the House from moving this forward.
Now, you think, why? What is the motive behind a motion like this?
Why would they not want this taxpayer bill to move forward? Well, my
friends, you can find it on the front page of today's Washington Post.
Basically, they are trying everything they can to preserve private bill
collectors hired by the IRS to chase after taxpayers.
So here on Tax Day, April 15th, we are trying to stop private bill
collectors from going after taxpayers on behalf of the IRS, an endeavor
that has cost taxpayers millions and brought in not enough by any
measure to cover the cost; a forgone revenue opportunity of $81
million, testified by the Taxpayer Advocate, if we simply took the
money we sent to these private contractors and hired employees to go
ahead and collect that debt. But they are so completely convinced that
they have got to pull every trick out of their hat to try and stop our
efforts to rein in these private bill collectors that they brought this
motion to recommit.
I would yield such time as I have remaining to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman.
I perused the motion to recommit by Mr. Herger. I think it is
interesting, the other side has pointed out we have chosen today, Tax
Day, to bring this bill to the floor. It is also interesting they take
this motion to recommit the same day that the Pope has arrived here in
the United States, who is with the President right now at the White
House; the same Pope who has decried the xenophobic nature of some of
the legislation that has been coming out of this House by the other
side of the aisle.
I think it is interesting to note that no illegal aliens will be hurt
by this motion to recommit. In fact, it will be the elderly woman who
relies upon her opportunities to buy these bonds for their income later
in life. I would also point out it is quite possible that New York
State and California, the States of two of the gentleman here today,
could potentially be hurt by this motion to recommit.
I think it is foolhardy. It obviously is an attempt to kill the bill
by requiring it be promptly reported back to committee, and therefore
the attempt is clear, once again to use anti-immigrant rhetoric to kill
the bill and to use ``promptly'' to kill the bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote
for the underlying legislation.
Mr. POMEROY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman please state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, isn't it true the Chair has
ruled multiple times on the fact that a bill reported promptly out of
the House may return to the House floor at the discretion of the
committee, and the fact that the Ways and Means Committee brought this
to the floor, it could easily do so within a relatively short period of
time, a matter of days?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair reaffirmed on November 15,
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the
bill back to the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
the bill, if ordered; and suspension of the rules with respect to H.R.
5517.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 210, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 189]

YEAS--210

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
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
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre

[[Page H2321]]

McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
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)

NAYS--210

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
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
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
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

NOT VOTING--12

Culberson
Cummings
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
Mack
Pallone
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1821

Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. ALLEN, BRADY of Pennsylvania, NADLER and Mrs.
DAVIS of California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BURGESS, SOUDER and TERRY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that you are the
deliberator and the decider of rules in this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules on questions of order. Does
the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it
not the job of the Speaker to interpret the rules of this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have an inquiry to state?
Would the gentleman please state that inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that under rule XX of
this House, that it says that no votes will be kept open to change the
outcome of that vote; is that true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair advised on March 11, 2008, a
challenge to the Chair's actions under clause 2 of rule XX may be
raised collaterally.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry, and I
beg your pardon, but I don't believe this is a hard question to answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker, is this:
Is the Speaker the deliberator and the decider if the rules of this
House are being followed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules on questions of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma'am, I don't know how else to put it other than
maybe a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The point of order is: Is the Speaker of this House
the deliberator and the decider if the rules of this House are being
followed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has recognized the gentleman for a
point of order. Would the gentleman please state his point of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The point of order is: Is it the Chair's
responsibility to rule on a point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has stated a parliamentary
inquiry. The Chair does rule on points of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the
electronic vote just completed violated clause 2(a) of rule XX which
provides in part ``a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be
held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair advised on March 11, 2008, a
challenge to the Chair's actions under clause 2 of rule XX may be
raised collaterally.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam, I am raising that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just ruled.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam 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 238,
noes 179, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 190]

AYES--238

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)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
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
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch

[[Page H2322]]

Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
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 (NJ)
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)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--179

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
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
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
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)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Culberson
Delahunt
Gohmert
Honda
Johnson, E. B.
Mack
Pallone
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Richardson
Rush
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1833

Mr. CRENSHAW changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________