[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6022-6029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5719, TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE AND 
                       SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2008

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1102 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1102

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform 
     return preparer penalty standards, delay implementation of 
     withholding taxes on government contractors, enhance taxpayer 
     protections, assist low-income taxpayers, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 5719 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1102 provides for consideration of H.R. 5719, 
the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, under a closed 
rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the bill controlled by 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, today, April 15, is Tax Day, which has long been a 
source of stress and anxiety for many working families. However, today 
we will bring good news. We will consider legislation that will 
alleviate many of the tax-related difficulties Americans face today and 
throughout the year. This legislation will streamline the tax filing 
process for individuals and businesses as well as improve IRS customer 
service and strengthen privacy protections.
  The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act is also fully paid for 
by ensuring funds from tax-advantaged health savings accounts will be 
used for qualified health care expenses, and by temporarily delaying a 
withholding requirement on government payments to contractors.
  It also contains provisions to strengthen the integrity of the Tax 
Code, making it simpler and fairer for all Americans. It eliminates 
incentives for U.S. companies to outsource work by ensuring they cannot 
escape paying employment taxes on government workers.
  In addition, this legislation will also prevent thousands of elderly 
and disabled individuals from owing employment taxes for in-home care 
workers provided through State and local government programs.
  This legislation also improves IRS service and outreach to low-income 
taxpayers in several ways. First, it allows IRS employees to refer 
taxpayers requiring assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income 
taxpayer clinics. It also requires that the IRS notify taxpayers of 
their potential eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has 
been the largest need-based, anti-poverty program in the United States, 
lifting millions of Americans out of poverty every single year.
  GAO estimates that in 2004, Americans failed to claim $8 billion in 
earned income tax credits, hundreds of millions of dollars in my home 
State of Ohio alone. These credits have the potential to help 
strengthen families and their financial security while also benefiting 
our communities at large by stimulating local economic development and 
job growth. And in order to ensure that eligible families can continue 
to take advantage of the earned income tax credit, this legislation 
authorizes an annual $10 million grant to Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance, or VITA, programs. VITA provides free assistance to 
qualified low-income taxpayers, thanks to these grants as well as the 
assistance of dedicated volunteers across the country.
  The availability of these valuable services makes it unnecessary for 
working families to turn to high-cost tax preparers and unscrupulous 
organizations engaging in predatory practices like offering what is 
called ``Refund Anticipation Loans.''
  The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act also includes several 
provisions to strengthen privacy protections and government 
accountability. Importantly, it prohibits the IRS from providing 
individual taxpayer information to private entities employing predatory 
loan tactics. And it requires the IRS to notify taxpayers of suspected 
identity theft and fraud. It also takes the important step of repealing 
the authority of the IRS to contract with private debt collection 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no duty more central to the functioning of the 
Federal Government than the collection of its revenue. But under the 
Bush Administration, this inherently governmental responsibility has 
been farmed out to private collectors who keep up to 25 percent of the 
tax revenues they collect. The program has caused confusion and 
aggravation for many taxpayers because these private debt collectors 
frequently demand sensitive personal information without revealing

[[Page 6023]]

the nature of their phone calls, as was documented in a Ways and Means 
Committee hearing last year.
  In addition, the operations of private contractors are not held to 
the same standard of transparency as required of the Federal 
Government. There is the danger that sensitive personal information 
could be compromised through careless handling of these cases without 
accountability. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has reported over 1,500 
complaints related to this program. And not only are there serious 
privacy and service issues, but the promised cost savings of the 
private debt collection program has simply not materialized. One needs 
to look no further than a headline on the front page of today's 
Washington Post that proclaims, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They 
Raise.''
  Private debt collectors are also less efficient than the IRS. As the 
IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service points out, the Department of the 
Treasury estimates that private collection agencies collect $4 for 
every dollar it invests in tax collection efforts, but every dollar 
invested in IRS collections yields five times that amount.
  The downside of continuing to outsource the duties of the Internal 
Revenue Service clearly outweigh any benefits. It's just another 
disturbing example of a poor governmental function being outsourced to 
private contractors with subpar results and a lack of transparency and 
accountability. It is a waste of taxpayer resources, and it is about 
time that we eliminated the IRS's authority to outsource this 
government responsibility.
  The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act improves government 
accountability and makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer for all 
Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 52nd closed 
rule of the 110th Congress, a new record for the United States 
Congress. And I oppose, also, the underlying legislation which would 
have been passed by this House in a bipartisan fashion without the 
inclusion of two partisan and controversial measures that have already 
drawn veto threats from President Bush's senior advisers.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert a Statement of Administrative Policy for 
H.R. 5719 in the Congressional Record outlining the administration's 
oppositions to these two provisions.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5719--Taxpayer Assistance and 
                       Simplification Act of 2008

       (Rep. Rangel (D) New York and 16 cosponsors.)
       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-
     called ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 
     2008.'' The bill includes provisions that would impose new 
     administrative burdens on the trustees of Health Savings 
     Accounts (HSAs). These new burdens on HSA administrators are 
     unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent 
     with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their 
     inception, and could undermine efforts by employers, 
     individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and 
     improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take 
     greater control of health care decision-making. If H.R. 5719 
     were presented to the President with these provisions, his 
     senior advisors would recommend he would veto the bill.
       Also, the Administration strongly opposes the provisions of 
     the bill that would repeal the current statutory 
     authorization for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private 
     debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000 
     cases have been referred to contractors, representing over 
     $910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program 
     would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the 
     next ten years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on 
     Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the 
     Government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by 
     the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous 
     Statements of Administration Policy, the Administration 
     strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not 
     consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced 
     approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting 
     outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to 
     the President with these provisions, his senior advisors 
     would recommend that he veto the bill.

  The first partisan provision unnecessarily included by our friends, 
the Democrats, in this otherwise noncontroversial measure would require 
all HSA account holders to verify independently the qualified nature of 
medical expenses for all withdrawals subject to those transactions not 
substantiated to income taxes.
  In theory, it is extremely important to make sure that health savings 
accounts are being used for qualified medical expenses and not for 
everyday use. Unfortunately, this language takes the reporting process 
way too far and risks discouraging health savings accounts enrollment, 
limiting patient choice, and further burdening our banks and financial 
organizations with implementing the substantial requirements.
  The current system requires that nonqualified withdrawals from a 
health savings account are subject to individual income taxes as well 
as a 10 percent penalty. If the Internal Revenue Service is not 
enforcing these penalties, it should be, and it would make sense that 
Congress would take the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate 
audits take place. Our constituents' health and our Nation's financial 
institutions should not suffer from the Federal Government's 
inefficiency.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has said that this provision would 
save money, though they are unable to determine how much savings would 
result from the newly captured penalties and taxes that make HSAs, 
health savings accounts, less attractive to consumers, in turn, giving 
them less health care choices.
  I might add that HSAs are there to provide consumers that do not have 
the tax advantages that corporate employees have, it gives employees 
health care on a pretax basis and is very important to families across 
this country.
  But consumers are not the only ones who would suffer. Introducing a 
new step of independent substantiation would increase costs for banks 
and account administrators. Should that happen, it is very possible 
that they will pass on these costs to employees, and ultimately, 
consumers.
  Over the past several weeks, Democrats have loudly complained about 
the charges that banks and other commercial lending institutions pass 
on to their customers, yet provisions allow for the possibility of 
increasing those costs further when it now applies to an HSA. I think 
Members of this body should be opposed to that.
  The other controversial and partisan provisions included in this 
legislation would revoke the Internal Revenue Service's authority to 
contract out collection authority for those small accounts that in the 
private sector would often be referred to as ``old and cold.'' In 2004, 
Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and 
advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog 
of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these 
unpaid taxes exist, meaning that every year the average taxpayer who 
plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover the taxes not paid 
for by these people who are not paying.
  This new practice, which begins as a small pilot program that grows 
as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in approximately $2.2 
billion in the first 10 years alone. And under this agreement, the IRS 
would get the first 25 cents of every dollar to hire new collections 
professionals, a provision that will have a positive, compound effect 
by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue 
for the government in the future.
  The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous 
attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, 
has been hugely successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of 
uncollected taxes. Mr. Speaker, that means that $30 million worth of 
taxes that the IRS chose not to collect has been brought in as a result 
of what these outside collectors have done. It has received a 98 
percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy as 
well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less 
than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies 
have filed complaints with the IRS, not one of which has been 
validated.

[[Page 6024]]

  Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers 
who play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention 
the increased revenues that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other 
new, big spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other 
side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, 
supposedly to protect the dues of big government union bosses.

                              {time}  1515

  They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in 
America already contract out their services, that this is something 
that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it 
to be said that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government 
Accounting Office found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private 
collectors . . . and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could 
learn from their best practices as it works to resolve longstanding 
problems with its debt collection activities.''
  As well, in July of 2007, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was 
incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in 
over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 full 
agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the 
government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not 
have otherwise received, which was about one-eighth of what it cost for 
these nonexisting services to be paid for.
  In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will 
lose his or her job as a result of this highly efficient private 
contracting. Instead, the IRS will benefit from the opportunity to 
focus their talent, expertise, and resources on higher priority, more 
complex cases.
  Last night in the most-closed-Congress-in-history Rules Committee, I 
offered an amendment coauthored by my friend Congressman Kevin Brady of 
Texas to strike this unfortunate provision, which was unsurprisingly 
defeated by the Democrat majority along party lines.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule and 
the underlying legislation that includes these two provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I'd just like to clarify for 
the Record some of the things that have been presented.
  The National Taxpayer Advocate, who is appointed by the Treasury 
Secretary, reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS 
Private Debt Collection initiative is an inefficient use of government 
dollars.'' The Chief of the National Taxpayer Advocate Service 
testified that the IRS employees bring in $20 for every dollar IRS 
spends, whereas private debt collectors bring in only $4.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation. The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act 
is an important step toward a more straightforward, just tax system. I 
commend Chairman Rangel for his tireless leadership.
  Among other things, this bill will allow IRS employees to refer 
taxpayers needing assistance to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics, 
boost outreach, supporting the earned income tax credit. For so many 
families facing such great income insecurity during these difficult 
times, the EITC is a powerful initiative whose benefits reach our 
entire economy.
  In particular, I want to recognize Representative Ellsworth and 
highlight this bill's Fair Tax Provision, rooted in our belief that no 
one, no one, should receive special privileges under our tax system. 
After all, what does it say about our Nation and our priorities when 
American companies like Kellog, Brown & Root, by far the largest 
contractor in Iraq, are allowed to take their Department of Defense 
dollars and filter them through offshore shell companies in order to 
avoid paying significant Social Security and Medicare taxes? It is my 
understanding that there are no other contractors in Iraq who are doing 
this.
  KBR, which received a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq's oil 
infrastructure and provides logistical support to the military, employs 
roughly 14,000 Americans in Iraq, and nearly all of them, approximately 
10,500, are listed as employees of two Cayman Islands' shell companies, 
contracted by KBR solely to avoid paying payroll taxes for those 
workers.
  And that means big cost savings passed on to a Defense Department 
that is contracted to reimburse KBR for all its labor costs while 
guaranteeing a profit, a Defense Department that is more than ready to 
look the other way as long as the bottom line works out in its favor. 
Indeed, the department knew KBR was shirking its responsibilities since 
2004; yet they took no action. This kind of setup may mean a smaller 
price tag on any particular contract, but the long-term costs to the 
government and the taxpayer are far greater, $846 million over 10 
years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the only one 
who really wins in the end is the company who gets the contract thanks 
to its unfair competitive advantage.
  Mr. Speaker, these practices must end. This bill amends current law 
to treat foreign subsidies of U.S. companies under contract with the 
U.S. Government as American employers. And it changes the degree of 
common ownership to 50 percent, ensuring that more companies owing 
taxes are subject to the new law and greater transparency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for the Department of 
Defense to pay for this war by doing business with a company that 
siphons money from its own workers and its own government, undermining 
the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds in the process. When 
tax dodgers try to avoid their responsibility, the American taxpayer 
suffers. This company should not be allowed to shirk their 
responsibilities and then be able to reap the rewards of very large 
Federal contracts. It is wrong. It should end. And we can no longer 
afford to look the other way.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get it. The IRS has a lot 
of work to do, and then as accounts become older because they don't get 
to those and they become 2, 3, 4, 5 years old but they are still debts 
that are owed this country, the IRS now, or at least we are led to 
believe this, would go collect that money when they hadn't done it 
their first 5 years.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not true. They will not go collect these 
accounts. They are old. And the point is it's still a debt that is owed 
to the United States Government. And that's where these private 
collectors come in. Private collectors that collect for at least 40 out 
of 50 States. Private collectors that have a 100 percent rating.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to say is that the IRS probably does 
do a good job with what it does do. But when it has not handled an 
account, it is unwise and bad for the taxpayer not to receive that 
money that is due from its services and from the taxes that took place, 
and that's what these collectors are all about. To say that they're not 
as efficient an outside collector as an IRS collector is silly because 
these cases are ones the IRS didn't want to handle in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 5719.
  As we are all aware, today is April 15, and once again Americans from 
all across this land and from all walks of life must fork over their 
hard-earned income to the IRS. So to ease the burden on the taxpayer, 
the House Democratic leadership, under a closed rule,

[[Page 6025]]

no opportunity for amendment, brings up this so-called Taxpayer 
Assistance and Simplification Act.
  However, Mr. Speaker, anyone who takes a good, hard look at the 
language in the bill, they might not think today is April 15 but rather 
April Fools Day. In fact, this legislation should really be entitled 
the ``Tax Evader Assistance and Simplification Act.''
  For example, this legislation will provide assistance to those who 
just don't feel like paying their taxes by eliminating a successful 
debt collection program that my friend from Texas just mentioned. 
Instead of lowering taxes for hardworking Americans of over half a 
billion dollars, this majority would rather give a tax break to these 
tax evaders to the tune, Mr. Speaker, of about $600 million.
  And, unfortunately, to pay for these tax-evader protections, this 
bill targets what? Health Savings Accounts and the millions of 
Americans who are trying to take control of their own health care 
decisions. This legislation will cost those Americans who use HSAs, as 
my children do, nearly $500 million. It effectively works to destroy 
market-based solutions in order to force government-run health care 
down the throats of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this bill makes today seem more 
like April Fools Day. Well, that moniker already belongs to April 1; so 
perhaps we can just call today ``Thank a Congressional Democrat Day.''
  I would say to the American people if they are happy that this 
Congress today will basically give away $600 million to tax evaders, 
thank a congressional Democrat.
  If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has done nothing 
to repeal the deplorable death tax, thank a congressional Democrat.
  If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has refused time 
after time to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 when our economy 
needs it most, thank a congressional Democrat.
  If they are happy with the fact this Congress has for 2 straight 
years passed budgets that included the largest tax increase in United 
States history, thank a congressional Democrat.
  And if they look forward to the prospect of writing an even bigger 
check to the IRS next year than they did this year, well, you guessed 
it, they can thank a congressional Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, I again ask all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, 
to oppose this rule so this bill can be amended to provide real 
assistance to the American taxpayer. But if this rule passes, I call 
upon them to oppose the underlying ``Tax Evader Protection and 
Simplification Act.''
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support moving forward 
with this legislation.
  I was a former small business owner, and I understand the real costs 
of health care, health insurance, increasing year after year. It's my 
understanding that the health savings account provision is not going to 
increase the burden on employers. The bill does not intend for 
employers to be subject to any additional burdens or obligations. And 
what it simply does is it closes the tax gap by requiring HSA trustees 
to report amounts paid to individuals that are not identified with 
medical expenses. Furthermore, we are going to be asking the GAO to 
study the uses of distribution from the HSAs.
  So I'm really pleased to know that we are ensuring that this 
provision does not negatively impact our business community.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
Arizona's letting us know about her understanding of what's happening.
  What I would like to tell her is that a number of companies, 
including the National Association for the Self-Employed, National 
Association of Health Underwriters, National Association of 
Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail 
Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Principal Financial Group, Retail 
Industry Leaders Association, Financial Services Roundtable, the HSA 
Council, the UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WellPoint, 
these people that employ people that utilize the HSA, are all saying it 
will have a negative impact upon the use of HSAs making it easier for 
individuals to get and have health care on a pretax basis.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me just make the observation that today 
is Tax Day, and effectively what we are doing to the American taxpayers 
is making them jump through more hoops. Certainly if they have an HSA, 
and the costs of this program are projected to be about a half a 
billion dollars a year, what we are going to be doing, what we are 
doing in bringing this bill to the floor, is enacting burdensome 
bureaucratic regulations that are going to undermine those health 
savings accounts which have been proven successful at slowing the 
growth of health costs and cutting insurance premiums for millions of 
individuals and small businesses. And my colleague has just listed all 
the business groups that are opposed to this legislation.
  The question I guess I have is in the last session, we had a largely 
bipartisan bill that the Republicans put forward, with Democratic 
support, 407-7 it passed. But now we have this provision dropped into 
this bill that cripples health savings accounts. Now I know we have a 
philosophical difference of opinion on whether we want to keep health 
care private and do it through the marketplace, or whether we want to 
have a government nationalization and takeover of health care. What I 
am sharing with you is if you cripple HSAs in this way, I guess you do 
build momentum for a government takeover of health care. But that is 
not going to make savings for the American consumers.
  HSAs are effective in reducing costs for the consumer. And I have got 
to tell you, these new burdens are unnecessary. They are inefficient. 
They are inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at 
their inception. These provisions undermine efforts by employers, 
individuals and insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health 
outcomes.
  How is it possible that we are going to consider a program here where 
it will take longer to receive reimbursements and will require 
individuals to come up with money out of their own pocket, potentially 
hundreds of dollars, on occasion $1,000 or so, at one time under this 
new proposal?
  I just think that this new step of independent substantiation frankly 
helps only one company, or a very limited number of companies who offer 
such bureaucratic systems and imposes costs on all of the rest. This is 
going to increase the costs for the banks, for the account 
administrators, and for the individual who uses them. And it is going 
to be passed on to the consumers.
  So we do complain about the charges which banks and other commercial 
lending institutions pass on to their customers. But why have this 
provision that is going to increase those costs on the consumer? This 
does not make sense. Health savings accounts were created to reduce the 
growth of health care costs. And they have achieved some noteworthy 
successes. But this bill is going to lead to increased health care 
costs for individuals by crippling HSAs. Don't taxpayers have enough to 
worry about on Tax Day?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can fix this 
bill and provide a little relief to hardworking Americans on April 15.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. This is an important bill and a timely bill. 
This is a bill that is due as a gift to the American people on this day 
which is referred to as Tax Day, April 15.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill simplifies the Tax Code. It also deals 
with antiharassment. It also deals with making sure that companies who 
do business in foreign lands are not using offshore accounts as scams 
to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

[[Page 6026]]

  And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the simplification 
of the code and applies that to those people who need it the most, 
because so many people, Mr. Speaker, are not even getting the 
advantages and getting their due from paying the taxes because of the 
fact that our Tax Code is so complicated. It is so complex. And this 
bill streamlines that.
  Now let me take just a few minute to go through some very salient 
points. The Government Accountability Office estimates that Americans 
overpaid their taxes by over $1 billion a year because they failed to 
claim deductions. This bill deals with that. About a quarter of 
Americans who are eligible for the earned income tax credit failed to 
claim that due to its complexity.
  But what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is it makes the Tax Code 
simpler and fairer. It strengthens the IRS's outreach program to make 
sure that people know that they are entitled to the tax refunds and to 
payments earned under the earned income tax credit. As I mentioned, 
there are 25 percent of households who are eligible for the earned 
income tax credit in 1999 that did not even claim it. And working 
Americans may have lost out on approximately $8 billion. This bill 
corrects that.
  And one of the most important measures of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is 
that the American people are tired of the harassment. They are tired of 
the phone calls, the abuse by these private collectors in which jobs 
are outsourced by the IRS to go collect the Federal debt. We have 
talked with the IRS. We have talked with the commissioner of the IRS. 
And he agrees with us that that can best be done not by outsourcing 
these jobs out, but by having the IRS employees collect that debt. 
Personal financial information of our American people is too precious 
and it is too confidential to be in the hands of private contractors on 
the outside.
  And just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, we have foreign companies like 
KBR that are working and having millions of dollars of contracts 
servicing in Iraq. But they are using offshore accounts to hide that 
money to make sure that they do not have to pay the important taxes 
that go to Medicaid and to Medicare, not only not paying their fair 
share, Mr. Speaker, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but not even 
allowing their employees to qualify for Medicare and for Social 
Security. This bill corrects that.
  And another important area, Mr. Speaker, is the new taxpayer 
protections against identity theft and tax fraud. It cracks down on 
misleading web sites that seek to get personal information by using 
their web sites and imitating and pretending that they are the IRS. Now 
Mr. Speaker, the American people are certainly fed up with being abused 
by these private collectors, being abused by these Web siters who are 
posing themselves as IRS agents.
  This is a very important measure. I support this rule going forward. 
This is a very important bill, giving the taxpayers a due recognition, 
making the Tax Code simpler, and making sure it is fair for all. It is 
a good bill. I support this bill rule, and let's pass this bill and 
move it forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that both sides have 
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. I am 
opposed because the majority continues to punish States without an 
income tax, States like Florida. Under the Republican leadership, 
Congress allowed States to once again allow their residents to deduct 
the State sales tax from their Federal income tax, just as other States 
are able to deduct their State income tax. My colleagues and I have 
repeatedly asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to extend 
the deduction. But we have repeatedly been ignored.
  As we all know, providing tax relief is a very important and 
effective way to stimulate our economy. Yet, the majority is choosing 
to pass a tax increase on to Floridians and residents of other States 
that only have a State sales tax.
  Florida has the second highest foreclosure rate in America. And this, 
ladies and gentlemen, would increase taxes on people already stressing 
to pay their mortgage payments, and today being April 15, obviously, to 
rush down to the post office to pay their Federal income tax.
  The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act will not assist the 
average taxpayer nor simplify their tax burden. Even though the bill is 
being considered today, I haven't had a single constituent contact me 
in support of this measure. I have, however, had some pretty upset 
constituents come in about the fact that this is going to be the last 
year that they can deduct the sales tax on their Federal income tax.
  Instead of heading off their requests, the majority is passing this 
bill under a closed rule, disallowing Members to help our cash-strapped 
constituents. The majority should really be ashamed of what they are 
doing today.
  I urge all Members to vote against this rule and also the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Ellsworth).
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me 
and yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Assistance and 
Simplification Act that is before us today. As everyone knows, it is 
April 15, Tax Day. No one likes paying taxes. But what folks really 
hate is when they have to pay more because bad actors are gaming the 
system and not paying their fair share. In fact, recent reports in the 
Boston Globe has shown that some government contractors have been using 
offshore Cayman Islands places, tax havens, to avoid paying their 
payroll taxes that they owe. A few weeks ago, I introduced the Fair 
Share Act to put a stop to this abuse, and I am proud to have this 
legislation included as part of today's important bill.
  My constituents back in the Eighth District of Indiana don't want to 
pay even more taxes to shore up programs like Social Security and 
Medicare because companies who receive billions of dollars from this 
very government are exploiting the tax system today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a strong message 
that Congress is not going to stand by and let contractors cheat their 
workers, cheat the government or the American taxpayers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas 
if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do 
not have any additional speakers other than my close.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I'll 
reserve my time until the gentleman has closed on his side and yielded 
back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, today is 
Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes 
without incurring financial penalties.
  This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax 
Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American 
has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at 
the Federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until 
next week, April 23.
  In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer 
calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question to this rule. If this previous question is 
defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to 
consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.
  This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth 
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted 
by

[[Page 6027]]

that act permanent. Let me say that again in regular English. That 
means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make sure that all 
these hardworking taxpayers that we are talking about won't have to pay 
an increase of taxes because the new Democrat majority wants tax 
increases for every single taxpayer in this country.
  Today is an opportunity where we can make those tax cuts permanent to 
make sure that our Tax Code encourages not only employers, but 
employees, and to grow our economy. It also repeals the termination 
date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2003, thereby reducing income tax rates on 
dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to 
make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, the 
tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing 
allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax 
credit for increasing research activities.

                              {time}  1545

  In summary, I would just say this, that what it will do is to 
maintain in a time of uncertainty the ability for America to continue 
to grow jobs, which means that America can compete globally. On the 
other hand, if you are for tax increases, if you want to tax taxpayers 
more, just simply vote with the Democrat majority.
  Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on 
or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of a no more fitting action for Congress 
during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this 
kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.
  By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting 
to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be 
voting to provide tax relief to Americans as they provide debt relief 
the same day to the world's poorest countries. I encourage all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of taxpayers who want to continue economic 
growth in America, I say let's vote to make the tax cuts permanent.

       Amendment to H. Res. 1102 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain 
     other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by 
     Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered 
     as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification 
Act of 2008 is a strong pro-taxpayer bill that adopts legislative 
recommendations and tackles many of the most serious problems detailed 
in the National Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress.
  In this weakening economy, America's working families will face many 
challenges in the months ahead and we in Congress need to do what we 
can to help. This legislation will streamline the tax filing process 
and ease the burden of tax law compliance, it will ensure that we are 
good stewards of taxpayer funds by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful 
programs that compromise the integrity of our governmental functions, 
and it makes the Tax Code simpler and fairer by eliminating unduly 
burdensome compliance requirements and providing commonsense solutions.
  I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation, because it 
makes the needs of working Americans a priority.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support ordering the previous 
question because I think the House should proceed to considering H.R. 
5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, without 
unnecessary delay.
  Some have urged that Members oppose ordering the previous question so 
that the House could consider legislation to make permanent all the tax 
cuts the Bush Administration pushed through Congress in 2001.
  I supported some of those reductions, but opposed others, and am not 
convinced that they should all be made permanent. But in any event, 
they will remain in effect until 2010. There is no need for us to 
consider today which should be extended, either as they stand or in 
modified form. I think instead we should proceed to the debate on H.R. 
5719, and so I am voting to order the previous question.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 1102, the Rule to Consider H.R. 5719, ``Taxpayer Assistance and 
Simplification Act of 2008''. This legislation, introduced by Chairman 
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis 
(D-GA), modernizes Internal Revenue Service functions to make filing 
taxes simpler while improving outreach to taxpayers.
  This Rule allows considerations:


                          Summary of H.R. 5719

  Key provisions included in H.R. 5719 as agreed to by the Committee 
would eliminate the special requirements for individuals to

[[Page 6028]]

keep detailed records of calls made on employer-provided cell phones; 
delay for one year the imposition of a three-percent withholding 
requirement on government payments for goods and services made after 
December 31, 2010; stops federal contractors from using foreign 
subsidiaries to evade Social Security and other employment taxes; make 
the administrators of state and local government programs liable for 
paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by government programs to 
in-home care workers provided to elderly and disabled persons; repeal 
the IRS's authority to use private debt collection companies to collect 
Federal taxes; prohibit the misuse of Department of the Treasury names 
and symbols in misleading websites and ``phishing'' schemes; protect 
low-income taxpayers by prohibiting IRS debt indicators for predatory 
refund anticipation loans, allowing IRS employees to refer taxpayers to 
qualified low-income taxpayer clinics, and authorizing funding for 
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, and require the IRS 
to notify taxpayers if it suspects theft of a taxpayer's identity.


            Programs for the Benefit of Low-Income Taxpayers

  There are parts of this tax bill that help the working poor and our 
elderly, making this tax bill truly live up to its name of being one of 
Taxpayer Assistance--not just give a credit to the top 2% of Americans.
  This bill would authorize an annual $10 million grant for Volunteer 
Income Tax Assistance, ``VITA'' programs, increasing the annual 
aggregate limitation authorized on grants to qualified low-income 
taxpayer clinics to $10 million.
  This bill would allow IRS employees to refer taxpayers needing 
assistance with tax cases to qualified low-income taxpayer clinics so 
they can get the help they need. Many people are struggling with how to 
manage complicated tax cases when they can barely afford to pay their 
mortgage. This portion of the bill will alleviate the fear that is 
sometimes associated with IRS tax cases particularly among people who 
cannot afford legal counsel.


        Elderly and Disabled Individuals Receiving In-Home Care

  This bill would make the administrators of state and local government 
programs liable for paying the employment taxes on amounts paid by 
government programs to in-home care workers provided to elderly and 
disabled persons. This is yet another provision of the bill that 
benefits our most vulnerable populations.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow 
for full consideration of this bill by supporting H. Res. 1102, the 
Rule providing for consideration of the Taxpayer Assistance and 
Simplification Act of 2008. I fully support what Representative Rangel 
and the Committee on Ways and Means has done to alleviate some of the 
burden on taxpayers.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Sutton

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the rule which I 
have placed at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Sutton:
       Add at the end the following new sections:
       Sec. 3.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment considered as adopted under the 
     first section of this resolution shall be modified as 
     specified in section 4.
       Sec. 4.  The modification referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       Page 21, line 26, insert ``as related to account 
     beneficiary substantiation requirements'' after ``flexible 
     spending arrangements''.
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 20. GAO STUDY ON HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the use of distributions from 
     health savings accounts.
       (b) Submission of Report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report on the findings of the study conducted 
     under subsection (a) and shall include therein 
     recommendations (if any) relating to such findings. The 
     report shall be submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the amendment to House 
Resolution 1102, if ordered; adopting House Resolution 1102, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules with respect to H.R. 5036.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 196, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce

[[Page 6029]]


     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Capuano
     Culberson
     Delahunt
     Gohmert
     Honda
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Meek (FL)
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Richardson
     Rush
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1612

  Messrs. LAMBORN, McHENRY and STEARNS changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. HIGGINS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 195, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Capuano
     Culberson
     Delahunt
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Honda
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Richardson
     Rush
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes are left.

                              {time}  1620

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________