Ander Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. The gentleman has made a couple of interesting points that I think bear emphasis. Some of the actions of the IRS have been outrageous, and we have talked about that from time to time. As the gentleman pointed out, this year, $63 million in bonuses were paid to IRS employees. It is interesting they were paid by the new Commissioner when the prior Commissioner had decided that it was not appropriate to pay those bonuses, and then the new Commissioner testified before our subcommittee how he was outraged that he didn't have enough money to answer more than 61 percent of his phone calls. I said: Sir, what is outrageous to me is you don't have enough money to answer the phone calls, which is the first thing you ought to do, yet you paid $63 million in bonuses, and then we find out that some of the people who received the bonuses were delinquent on their taxes. I urge adoption of the amendment

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want you to know that in the bill we have a provision that applies to the IRS. This is a little bit broader, but I think it is a good amendment, so I encourage folks to support it.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I just got this amendment a little bit ago. I don't quite understand what the gentleman is trying to do. As I read the amendment, it basically says you just can't pay Federal employees. If I am a Federal employee and somebody says you can't pay me this wage, I guess I can either come to work and not get paid or I can just decide that you decided not to pay me so I don't think I will come to work anymore. I don't know how many people are affected by this, but I have got to believe a lot of people would look at this and say: Gee, the gentleman from Florida says we are just not going to pay you. I guess on behalf of the Federal employees, I have to oppose that, because I think all Federal employees ought to be paid. I don't think we should pass legislation saying they can't be paid. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I just want to read this again. It says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an annual rate of grade 1, step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. So if you are grade 1, step 6, it says you can't be paid at that rate. It doesn't say anything about raising your salary or lowering your salary. It just says you can't be paid. I really think that this is something we ought to reject. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment even though I reserved a point of order. I would just inquire if the gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, a little earlier, we had a discussion about this, and I pointed out that it is very clear that, right now, it is still illegal under Federal law to manufacture, to distribute, or to dispense marijuana. That is the Federal law. There is also a Federal law that says banks can't launder the proceeds of illegal activities, and as we talked about earlier, we have got the fact that the Treasury has given guidance on how to facilitate the sale of marijuana. The point is the law is the law. The Federal law, I just stated, and I don't think we can go around picking and choosing which States the Federal law applies to. The Federal law is the Federal law, and that is the way it ought to be. I think that the fact that we have those two laws, when somebody violates those laws, that is wrong. Earlier this evening, we adopted an amendment that corrected that. This seeks to go back the other way. I would just urge people to vote ``no'' on this because we have a Federal law that controls, and we can't pick and choose who gets to comply and who doesn't. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think every American taxpayer needs to be assured that their personal information is going to be held in strict confidence, and that is what this amendment does. I think, particularly at a time when the IRS has demonstrated a lack of ability to either self-police or self-correct, when each week we read about a new revelation of some sort of bureaucratic incompetence or maybe willful disregard for the law, I think it is more important than ever to make sure that every taxpayer knows that personal information is going to be held in strict confidence. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to applaud him for correcting any procedural flaws. He makes an excellent point, and I accept the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Tennessee. She makes an excellent point, and I think everyone agrees that we ought to try to rein in this culture of spending and put in place a culture of savings. I have been working my entire congressional career to do that. One of the things that we do in the appropriations process is we have hearings. We listen to people. They try to justify their request. Sometimes when programs work well, they might receive an increase. When people are not doing very well, like the IRS, they have their request denied and are actually funded at lower levels. What is interesting, last night on this floor, we added about $1 billion to our debt reduction by taking that billion dollars out of the IRS. So when we set our priorities, we do that day to day. In this case, we had 12 hearings. If you look at our bill, there are actually nine programs that are just flat out eliminated. They are gone. It wasn't a 1 percent or an X percent cut. It was just, that is not a program that is vital to the functioning of the Federal Government so it is gone. It has been eliminated. There are several agencies where we have reduced their funding because we figured out that they could do with a little bit less. But when you take an additional 1 percent across the board after you have had a lot of time and energy put into place to set the right priorities, I don't think you take into consideration that some programs are better than others. I know my friend from Tennessee cares a lot about Women's Business Centers, and they received an increase under our appropriations bill because we think they are doing a great job. The Small Business Administration does great work at creating private sector jobs. The Women's Business Centers, because we thought they were doing well, they received an increase. Now, I don't know that she really wants to cut them. She says she is not going to apply these cuts to the Federal judiciary, and I think that is appropriate. Actually, the Federal courts are pretty happy. Last night, several millions of dollars were added to the Federal courts. I guess the simple point is that you have to take into consideration the merit of every program. If we didn't do anything and we just showed up one day and said how should we fund these people, then I think it is appropriate to say, well, let's just cut them across the board. But when you spend time and energy in setting the priorities and making hard choices, that is what we have done, and we are proud of the work we have done. I appreciate her compliment that we have done great work. The fact that she would like to cut 1 more percent across the board I don't think is the right way to observe the situation. I appreciate what she is trying to do, but I don't think in this case it is the right approach. I would also like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want to agree with you that I don't think that taxpayers should bail out Detroit's pension shortfall or any other city's shortfall. So I want you to know that I support your amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think the gentlewoman has very well explained the amendment. We have a system that has been working well for 40 years, and so I don't think we need to make any unnecessary changes, and so I urge Members to support her amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the further consideration of H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular materials on the same.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular material on the same.