[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.

     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) of such Code) by members of such group 
     (including any entity treated as a member of such group by 
     reason of this sentence).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to services performed after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     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.

                          ____________________