[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3405-H3411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5444, TAXPAYER FIRST ACT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5445, 21ST CENTURY IRS ACT
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 831 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 831
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any bill specified in
section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such bill are waived. The respective
amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in each such bill
shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in each such bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) The bill (H.R. 5444) to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue
Service, and for other purposes.
(b) The bill (H.R. 5445) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to improve cybersecurity and taxpayer identity
protection, and modernize the information technology of the
Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 5444, the Clerk
shall--
(1) await the disposition of H.R. 2901, H.R. 5437, H.R.
5438, H.R. 5439, H.R. 5440, H.R. 5443, H.R. 5445, and H.R.
5446;
(2) add the respective texts of all the bills specified in
paragraph (1), as passed by the House, as new matter at the
end of H.R. 5444;
(3) conform the title of H.R. 5444 to reflect the addition
to the engrossment of the text of all the bills specified in
paragraph (1) that have passed the House;
(4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(5) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition to the engrossment of H.R. 5444 of
the text of the bills specified in subsection (a)(1) that
have passed the House, such bills shall be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Harper). The gentleman from Washington
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 831, providing for consideration of
two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act;
and H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.
The rule provides for consideration of these measures under a closed
rule. Both of these pieces of legislation were introduced with
bipartisan cosponsors, and both were passed out of the Ways and Means
Committee with unanimous support on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was not only tax day, but it was also the last
time the American people had to file their taxes under an outdated and
antiquated system. Thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law
by President Trump, Americans have much to look forward to: a
simplified tax system, lower rates, a doubled child tax credit to help
everyday families, a doubling of the standard deduction, and the
freedom to buy the healthcare plan that is right for their families
rather than be forced to buy government-mandated health insurance.
As these reforms continue to be implemented, and Americans across the
country have begun to see their paychecks grow and small businesses
begin to move forward with less regulatory burden, a bipartisan effort
in the U.S. House of Representatives to modernize and reform the
Internal Revenue Service has arisen. The goal is to redesign the IRS
into a modern, 21st century agency focused on the ``taxpayers first''
service--reining in IRS abuses, protecting American taxpayers from
fraud, and fairly and efficiently resolving disputes within the agency.
H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, demonstrates a bipartisan,
comprehensive effort to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue
Service. This legislation makes numerous changes to reorganize the
agency in an attempt to focus its efforts on customer service. It
creates an independent appeals process to improve dispute resolutions
and requires the IRS to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
improve its customer service strategy. It requires the
[[Page H3406]]
agency to maintain the IRS Free File Program, equipping low- and
middle-income Americans with free individual tax preparation and
electronic filing services.
This legislation also requires the IRS to improve efficiency, enhance
cybersecurity, and better meet the needs of taxpayers. By ensuring the
agency sends notice to the actual taxpayer before contacting friends,
neighbors, or clients when conducting an audit, we can ensure Americans
receive fair notice and treatment.
Mr. Speaker, the mission statement of the IRS is to provide America's
taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their
tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to
all. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, the IRS fails to provide the
quality customer service they claim to strive for.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported in 2015
that the IRS had no strategy in place to define what quality and
customer service should look like, nor did the agency have any plans to
develop one. This is unacceptable, so I am pleased that the Taxpayer
First Act requires the IRS to work to fulfill their mission statement.
The 21st Century IRS Act similarly seeks to modernize the IRS by
specifically focusing on improving cybersecurity and taxpayer identity
protection as well as reforming the information technology systems
within the agency. The IRS relies heavily on an aging, antiquated IT
infrastructure to administer the tax system. This infrastructure, some
of which dates back to the 1960s, is unreliable and is not keeping up.
As we just saw yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the web page for paying tax
bills using personal bank accounts crashed, leading to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin having to provide Americans with an extra day to file
their returns. We must bring the IRS's infrastructure into the 21st
century in order to prevent negative impacts on taxpayers seeking to
comply with their tax responsibilities as we witnessed yesterday.
{time} 1230
Unfortunately, these potential threats can include much more serious
threats as well, including potential cyber attacks and fraud schemes
that seek to exploit stolen taxpayer information.
The 21st Century IRS Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
work collaboratively with the public and private sectors to protect
taxpayers from identity theft tax refund fraud. This legislation also
requires the Secretary to submit a written report to Congress
describing how the IRS can utilize new payment platforms to increase
the number of tax refunds paid by electronic funds transfers, thereby
streamlining the final leg of the filing process for taxpayers.
It provides for further recommendations regarding methods to prevent
identity theft and refund fraud and requires that State, local, or
Federal agencies conduct on-site reviews every 3 years of all
contractors or other agents receiving Federal returns and return
information.
These reforms are common sense and will prevent frustrating,
prolonged interactions with the IRS that could be much more easily and
seamlessly resolved online.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward and bipartisan rule, allowing
for consideration of two bills that will require the Internal Revenue
Service to put customer service needs of the American taxpayer first,
and to reform, modernize, and improve the agency's infrastructure.
The IRS must prioritize cybersecurity and taxpayer identity theft
protections. The underlying bills in this rule will do just that, and I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation to continue our historic efforts to reform our Nation's tax
system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5444 and H.R.
5445. I support the underlying bills, but the problem is these rules
don't allow any amendments.
We suggest an open process. I offered three amendments myself to
these bills. My colleague Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to improve
the bill. Unfortunately, we have been denied a vote, and instead this
body is having a debate on, frankly, issues, just like yesterday, there
doesn't even need to be that much debate on. I would think these bills,
like the one yesterday, could have been put on something called the
suspension calendar, which means they are not too controversial.
Usually the reason we do a rule is we allow amendments. That is why
we do that, and yet all the amendments that were offered were rejected.
So we are kind of drawing out the time it takes to pass these
bipartisan bills instead of spending the time on issues that the
American public want us to address.
Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, are clamoring
for debate around what is called an AUMF, an authorized use of military
force, bill to address the authority of the President with regard to
Syria, with regard to ISIS and other operations.
We are now 4 months into 2018. The House still has not considered a
bill to protect our Dreamers, our young aspiring Americans.
So inaction, inaction, inaction. And even where we are moving forward
with a bipartisan bill, we are shutting out ideas from Republicans and
Democrats that could actually make the bill better.
I, as I mentioned, offered a couple of those to this bill, and the
majority blocked those amendments on a party-line vote. One of my
amendments would have provided clarity to consumers and the IRS around
providing a window for immunity on filings for use of cryptocurrency, a
bipartisan bill with Mr. Schweikert. Another amendment would have
provided tax relief for kombucha manufacturers, a bipartisan bill with
Mr. Tipton. Another would have eased tax burdens on small businesses in
States that have legalized marijuana.
All three have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee could have
granted the necessary waivers, as they do on many amendments when they
choose to, and allowed them.
Mr. Sherman's amendment was actually germane to the underlying bill.
There wouldn't have needed to be any additional waivers that were
granted. We simply could have advanced it to the floor to debate.
So, again, these bills are largely noncontroversial. What is
controversial is why won't the Republican leadership allow Democrats
and Republicans to amend and improve these bills? And two, why we are
wiling away our time on bills that we could have done Monday on a
suspension voice vote instead of really working on a bipartisan
Authorization for Use of Military Force or the other prescient issues
our country faces?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the Rules Committee, and
what we witnessed Monday was an amazing thing, coming together in a
bipartisan fashion on some very important bills to bring reform to the
Internal Revenue Service.
And I might respond to the gentleman's comments.
It was a very open process through the Ways and Means Committee. It
was, as far as I recall, at least a 3-year process, working
bipartisanly, very cooperatively, in a comprehensive fashion in order
to get the work done that was brought together and culminated with the
work that we see here today.
So, as far as an open process, I don't know what could have been more
open. It was one that we can be proud of, one that we should see more
of in this institution, frankly, and I am very proud that we are able
to be here today, following a long history of using the closed rule
process when we are considering these kinds of bills as it pertains to
revenue.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), whose amendment was rejected in a party-line
vote by the Rules Committee and not even allowed to be debated for a
moment on the floor of the House.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule for three reasons:
First, it is a closed rule. You should always vote against a closed
rule.
[[Page H3407]]
But second, it is the embodiment of a pernicious tradition of always
having closed rules on tax bills. That is outrageous. Why would we not
apply that to everything that Congress deals with?
We are told: Well, if we don't have a closed rule, we have to have an
open rule; we don't want an open rule on a tax bill.
You could have a structured rule. You could have germane amendments.
What does a closed rule on every tax bill mean? It means that over
400 of us can never offer an amendment about taxation, and it also
means that, if an amendment is hotly debated in the Ways and Means
Committee and prevails or is defeated by one vote, then the entire
House cannot chime in on that issue. The second reason to vote against
this rule is to break this ironclad tradition of closed rules on tax
bills.
There is a third reason, and that is, my amendment to strike section
202 was not allowed. I am an old CPA. I headed the second largest tax
agency in this country. I am very interested in easing the burden on
taxpayers. This bill generally does that. But section 202 is designed--
doesn't actually do this, but it pushes in the direction of locking in
the free file system. That is a contract that the IRS has with TurboTax
and H&R Block that is supposed to allow everyone with an income of
under $66,000 to file for free. But with TurboTax, you have to have an
income under $33,000; with H&R Block, you have to be under 50.
I, personally, resent that.
The Free File Program isn't free even if you don't have to pay for
the software because you have got to gather your 1099, your INT, your
1099-DIV, and your W-2, and you have to correctly interpret that and
enter it into the system.
There is a better system. It is called the pre-prepared tax system.
It is being used in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Japan, Chile, and
the United Kingdom, not to mention Norway and Finland. The IRS would
send you the return. It is already filled out. They already have all
the information from your 1099s and your W-2s. You could just hit
``yes'' or you could make changes there on the screen, or you could
throw away the IRS' version, go get TurboTax, go to H&R Block, and fill
out your own return the way you do it now.
This provision, section 202, pushes the IRS against going to the pre-
prepared return system, a better system, a system that was explored in
1998 by a Republican Congress, and the IRS was told to develop that
system by 2008. The IRS never did.
So there should be an amendment to strike section 202 and push the
IRS toward a pre-prepared return system where you could literally be
done with your tax return in 1 minute and not have to keep track of all
these pieces of paper and try to interpret them.
There is a solution because this bill will pass. This bill should
pass. All the other provisions are pretty good.
You can cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act. By doing that,
you would override section 202, tell the IRS that they have to go to a
pre-prepared return system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SHERMAN. We would catch up with Spain and Norway and Denmark and
Japan and really have a tax system where you don't have to keep track
of all the little pieces of paper that the IRS already has, and you
wouldn't have to interpret them and figure out where to put them in the
complicated software when the IRS already knows how to do that.
I realize that TurboTax and H&R Block might lose some money, but this
is a chance for taxpayers around the country to have an easy system.
If you can't vote against the rule--and I wouldn't vote against the
bill--cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Ways and Means Committee put out a discussion draft on March 26
entitled, ``The Taxpayer First Act.'' The committee provided 2 weeks to
collect input from Members, stakeholder groups, and the public. I would
say to my good friends across the aisle that there were a number of
substantive comments received, and my understanding is the committee
considered them prior to introducing this bill that we have today.
So I would say let's honor that work. Let's move forward with this
important piece of legislation, and I urge support of the rule.
Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out, like every committee, you
can always send a letter to any committee I serve on or the Ways and
Means Committee. But to take away from Members their right to come to
the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote is to relegate us to
the same position as all 320 million Americans, all of whom can send a
letter to the Ways and Means Committee.
I will also point out that the act I talked about, the Tax Filing
Simplification Act, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, has a
number of cosponsors, and has never received a hearing or half a
hearing or any discussion.
So to say that the Ways and Means Committee will accept our letters
and, therefore, we should have closed rules on tax bills, apply that to
every other issue we have--every committee in this House will accept a
letter from any other Member, let alone any constituent--means we
really want closed rules on everything.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time, the bipartisan effort in this bill
is reflected in a very, very good way, and I urge respecting that
process, respecting the comprehensive, collaborative work that was done
on this bill, and I urge support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on tax day, the White House made
an announcement about President Trump's taxes, but it wasn't the
announcement that Americans were waiting for.
Instead of releasing his returns, President Trump was actually just
requesting an extension to file his 2017 income tax return, which still
would not be made public if or when he files it. It is a good reminder
that President Trump has broken with decades of tradition when, as a
Presidential candidate, he did not disclose his tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, the
Presidential Tax Transparency Act, which would require Presidential
nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was tax day. Today is tax day. I
call upon House Republicans to allow review of the President's tax
returns. Now it is tax day again, so I want to reiterate and give my
colleagues a vote for transparency.
It was reported yesterday that the President filed for an extension
on his returns, but while every President going back to Richard Nixon
released his tax returns to the American people in the name of
transparency and accountability, this President continues to keep his
own finances shrouded in secrecy.
He was told to disinvest at the very beginning of his administration
by the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Shaub. The President has not.
{time} 1245
Since February of 2017, I have been calling on the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, of which I am a member, to request the
President's tax returns, which they have the power to do under section
6103 of the Tax Code. I called up resolutions, but 18 times the
committee and the House have voted against seeing the President's tax
returns--just seeing them.
Today, I renew my call for this Congress to act to review the
President's tax returns and out his conflicts and self-enrichment while
in office.
Why did President Trump support giving the wealthy and big
corporations a giant tax cut in the tax scam just passed in the
Congress in December?
[[Page H3408]]
Why is he letting lobbyists for Wall Street and Big Oil write their
own rules?
Candidate Trump promoted himself as a successful businessman who
would run the government like he ran his businesses. Well, let's take a
look at the business.
In Azerbaijan, he did business with the likely money launderer for
Iran's Revolutionary Guard. This is a fact. In the Republic of Georgia,
his partner was being investigated for bank fraud and money laundering.
In Indonesia, his development partner was deeply involved in ``dirty
politics.'' In Brazil, there were criminal investigations into his
deals. The FBI is reportedly looking into his Vancouver hotel where one
of the Trumps worked with a Malaysian family that admitted to financial
fraud. And in New York, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for
financial crimes in their dealings with the Trump hotel in SoHo.
When he became the President, he did not divest himself from his
business. Since then, there is no question that Mr. Trump has profited
from the taxpayers and from their government positions, as have the
members of his Cabinet. The examples of self-dealing and quid pro quos
are too myriad to recount. Here are just a few.
January 23, 2017, Saudi Arabia held a party at the Trump hotel after
renting rooms for lobbyists for 5 months.
I know this is unpleasant to listen to, but we have a right.
And I return you to April of 2014, when the Speaker of this House
presently was the head of the Ways and Means Committee and dictated to
us how they had a right, as a legislative branch of government, to go
into the backgrounds, if not the tax returns, of Lois Lerner, who was
being investigated at that time, and nothing happened to her, of
course, but we argued the point on 6103. And he said, very
specifically: This is our duty to oversee the executive branch of
government.
Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is,
period, and that is what he said.
So Saudi Arabia, on January 23, 2017, held a party at the Trump
hotel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. February 28, Trump, who owns 12 golf courses, rolled
back a rule limiting water pollution by golf courses.
April 4, the State Department ran an online ad for Mar-a-Lago. Isn't
that nice?
September 19, reports reveal that the Pentagon spent more than
$130,000 a month to rent at the Trump Tower, more than twice as much as
the other tenants.
I have got a whole list of these, Mr. Speaker. I won't bore you, but
I will tell you this: We are going to enter them into the Record. This
is not the America I know, and this is not the America you know. We
have a right to put sunlight on the disinfection. That is our job. This
is a checks-and-balance system, Mr. Speaker, and we need--not to take
advantage of it, but we need to follow the rules. There are no
personalities here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President of the United States.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the many groups that are
supporting H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as the group
supporting H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.
For the Taxpayer First Act, the Americans for Tax Reform, the
Coalition for Effective and Efficient Tax Administration, the National
Foreign Trade Council, and the App Association support the Taxpayer
First Act.
As far as the 21st Century Act, H.R. 5445, Citizens Against
Government Waste, the Electronic Transactions Association, the
MarketPlace Lending Association, the National Taxpayers Union, the
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, FreedomWorks, the Institute for Policy
Innovation, 60 Plus Association, the Institute for Liberty, the Council
for Citizens Against Government Waste, Less Government, and the Small
Business & Entrepreneurship Council all join us in supporting not only
the underlying rule, but the underlying legislation, as I would urge my
colleagues to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), our final speaker.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule, and I want to
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous
question so the House can vote on my bipartisan--I want to emphasize
that, bipartisan--legislation entitled, the ``Presidential Tax
Transparency Act.'' This bill codifies the longstanding bipartisan
tradition of Presidents and Presidential nominees disclosing their tax
return information to the American people.
Now, as was said previously, yesterday was tax day, and it is an
important reminder that, as millions of Americans fulfill their duty to
file their income tax returns, the President of the United States of
America still refuses to release his tax returns to the American
people.
I think holding the highest office in the land demands transparency,
yet the President refuses to honor what promotes trust with the
American people.
And as I said, both Republican and Democratic Presidential
candidates, going back to Richard Nixon, all voluntarily put their tax
returns out to the American people. Why? To establish trust that they
were transparent and that the American people could see whether there
were any potential conflicts of interest and many other things, because
tax returns are highly instructive. As I said, that has gone on for
decades.
I wrote this legislation because, in 2016--and I wrote it in 2016--
there were two candidates, one from each party, who refused to put out
their tax returns, and I did not think that that was honoring the
American people. Now, by refusing to make his tax returns public, the
President implies he is hiding important information from the American
people.
So what this legislation does--and, again, I want to reiterate, it is
bipartisan--it places into law disclosure by requiring the current
President and all Presidential nominees of both parties to release
their tax returns because, again, in a democracy, truth and
transparency should be the gold standard. Presidents and Presidential
candidates should be held to the highest standard of transparency to
ensure that the interests of the American people are met.
Now, tax returns contain vital information: whether the candidate has
actually paid taxes, what they own, how much they have borrowed, who
they have borrowed from, whether they have made charitable donations,
and what tax loopholes have they taken advantage of and exactly what
they are, if they have. They are also highly instructive as to any
conflicts of interest.
The current President has 564 financial positions in companies
located in the United States and around the world, according to the
Federal Election Commission, making him more susceptible to conflicts
of interest than any President in our history. Only a full release of
his tax returns will provide the public with clear information as to
his potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements
with foreign governments and foreign businesses.
This legislation, again, is bipartisan because transparency and good
governance are not partisan issues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, according to a recent poll, 67 percent of
Americans believe the President should release his tax returns just as
all of his predecessors since Richard Nixon have done.
During the campaign, the President even promised he would do so
before falsely claiming that he couldn't release his tax returns
because of an audit. There is no such thing.
Yesterday's editorial board of the Washington Post wrote: ``The
President is setting a precedent--that Presidents can promise one
thing, do another, and end up dismissing essential
[[Page H3409]]
standards of disclosure. Congress should not accept this erosion of
good-government practice.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. And, again, I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Your constituents will reward
you for this because this is about transparency, about our democracy,
about transparency being the gold standard.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask is the gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to defeat the previous
question and call up a bill to increase transparency with regard to the
President. We also have an opportunity to reject a rule that excludes
good ideas, where Members of Congress, in good faith, offered
amendments to improve the bill and they were denied.
Of course, the two underlying bills are fine bills. What is broken is
the process, a process that doesn't allow a meaningful floor debate on
improvements to a bill and a process that doesn't allow any floor time
for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or addressing the needs
of our Dreamers. Unfortunately, these bills are brought to the floor
under a closed rule.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
have come together to work on the important issues covered in both of
these underlying bills. This rule provides for consideration of H.R.
5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as H.R. 5445, the 21st Century
IRS Act.
The IRS currently lacks a comprehensive customer service strategy,
nor does it have any system in place to measure metrics and benchmarks
for success within customer service. Additionally, the IRS has not
undergone organizational restructuring in the last 20 years.
H.R. 5444 requires the agency to develop a comprehensive strategy for
customer service and to submit such plan to Congress no later than 1
year after the enactment of this legislation. It provides for the
equitable treatment of every American taxpayer, including ensuring
proper notice when the IRS seeks further information from an
individual.
Mr. Speaker, the IRS spends $2.4 billion, annually, on information
technology, technology that, in some cases, dates back, I understand,
to the 1960s. The agency struggles with undertaking and completing
large IT modernization efforts to update its legacy systems, which,
therefore, can put American taxpayers in a frustrating or even
dangerous position.
With the rise of tax refund fraud, a modern IT system must be enacted
to ensure taxpayers can successfully comply with their tax
requirements. H.R. 5445 modernizes and improves the ease and efficiency
of the taxpayer experience when filing taxes, retrieving information,
resolving issues, and making payments.
This legislation includes a number of provisions to strengthen the
IRS' ability to proactively combat identity theft, tax refund fraud,
and ensures IRS accountability for secure online taxpayer processes.
In light of the historic tax reform legislation initiated by this
representative body, the people's House, and signed into law by the
President, President Trump, just last year, it is vital the Internal
Revenue Service undertake its own important reforms.
{time} 1300
No one enjoys receiving an envelope stamped ``Internal Revenue
Service.'' Far too often, taxpayers find the IRS to be inaccessible,
intimidating, and unaccountable. American taxpayers deserve a robust
and efficient agency with important oversight protections and
modernized systems to keep their private information protected.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favor of this bipartisan rule,
and I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 831, and both of
the underlying bipartisan bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 831 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H3410]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 189, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 143]
YEAS--226
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Barletta
Black
Blumenauer
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Comstock
Delaney
DeLauro
Keating
McCaul
Moore
Scalise
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
{time} 1325
Mr. SCHRADER, Mses. DelBENE, FUDGE, Messrs. BROWN of Maryland,
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. SUOZZI, Mrs. CAROLYN B.
MALONEY of New York, and Mr. CRIST changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 177, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
AYES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawson (FL)
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
[[Page H3411]]
NOES--177
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Barletta
Black
Blumenauer
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Comstock
Delaney
DeLauro
Keating
Nolan
Scalise
Scott, David
Simpson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1332
Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143 and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 144.
____________________