Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, an esteemed environmentalist and champion for our national resources, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 763 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 763.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wish to again give my deepest condolences to the folks who have lost their property in your district, Mr. Lewis. As you have said, we have traveled there and had hearings, and, frankly, with all the dry timber that was left behind there, we were fearful that that would have happened a couple of years ago, and I understand it's happening as we speak. And hopefully we will not lose any more lives. And our hopes and prayers are with the people that habitat that region in and around Lake Arrowhead. With regard to the bill at hand, H.R. 1011, I would just like to say, as has been said before, that this measure is supported by the members of the Virginia delegation. We will be offering, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment that was proposed under this rule. It's supported by all the local boards of supervisors as well as Senator Warner, Governor Kaine. And, in fact, we have listened to the community. And Mr. Sessions is right. The local officials and local community leaders, citizens of a region should be consulted when we designate one of these wilderness areas. And, in fact, this bill does incorporate those suggestions and comments of the local community. They desire this wilderness designation for their area. And it is truly going to be a national treasure. It already is, and it will be preserved for our children and for their children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the gentleman's last comments. What I heard just does not even make any sense to me, having spent the last 5 years of my life sitting here watching this House debate veterans issues. The first 4 years that I was here, we saw the Republican Congress that was in power at that time refuse to take up a number of measures that were brought forward by the Democratic minority at that time. In fact, there were several discharge petitions that laid languishing at that desk for weeks and weeks on end until they finally died at the end of the session because they never got the attention of the Republican majority at that time. In fact, this year, since we have taken back the House and we have become a Democratic majority, we have been champions of veterans issues. And to say that they want to now lay letters upon the table that they're demanding of the Speaker's attention, we have been putting attention on this issue for a number of years. And not only are we taking care of our veterans now for the first time in 12 years, but we are taking care of it in a way that would surprise them. And our Nation's veterans are very grateful that we are finally giving them the respect they deserve. And I will tell you that this House, by a vote of 409-2, passed the Veterans appropriations bill. And, yes, we do need to go to conference; but we will do that when the conferees are appointed in the Senate, when it is appropriate to do it. We have passed, this year, an additional appropriation of $3.4 billion to take care of our Nation's veterans. We will, in fact, make sure that all the veterans are taken care of. In fact, on November 11 of this year we will celebrate tremendous respect for our Nation's veterans and will, in fact, do everything that we have promised to do, and more. We just saw today three bills taken up by the Veterans' Committee to, in fact, take care of the needs of our Nation's veterans. And I am highly offended by the insinuation that we are in some way acting in a partisan way not to take care of our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1011, this bill is, in fact, an important bill to protect the natural resources of the State of Virginia, a vital area for our country. Mr. Boucher and the delegation from Virginia have done a fabulous job in crafting this proposal. It is a bill that preserves tens of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness in Jefferson National Forest. It is necessary that these beautiful, natural landscapes remain protected and untouched so that they may be enjoyed by our children and our grandchildren for years to come. It deserves the strong support of all the Members on the floor today. That is the bill that we will be moving the previous question on. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I share the comments of our prior speakers. Both the Speaker of the House and the gentleman from California spoke eloquently about the disasters that are happening in our home State. It is certainly a time of great need and a great need for us to come together to figure out how we proceed from here to battle this rage. I see Mr. Lewis in the audience, and I have been to his district at a hearing about this very topic, and I know the serious nature of some of the forest management issues that are around his district and we have discussed it on numerous occasions. And our sympathies are with you and those of your constituents, Mr. Lewis. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions. All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, many House Republicans have mistakenly bought into President Bush's false rhetoric about the CHIP program and its reauthorization. I would hope that they would listen to their Senate Republican colleagues who are willing to see past the White House rhetoric. Republican Senator Corker from Tennessee said, ``What will move our country towards socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care.'' Republican Senator Roberts of Kansas said, ``I'm not for excessive spending and I strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concerns about this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly, they are not.'' And Republican Senator Hatch from Utah thinks the President ``has been sold a bill of goods'' on this legislation. Madam Speaker, the House Republicans should not buy into the administration's falsehoods. This week, we have an opportunity to ensure 10 million children have access to quality health insurance. They should join us in overriding the President's veto.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. I called it traditional.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California is a very skilled orator, and I appreciate his speaking ability. I will tell you, however, one of the great tools that people use when they are as talented as Mr. Dreier is, when they don't want to talk about the bill at hand, they talk about everything else around it. The reality is that the bill at hand, the rule that we are trying to move forward to bring a bill to the House floor today, eliminates privatization of tax collection. Now, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle love privatization. They love it in Iraq where it has not worked and our military is struggling under the burden of having privatization and contractors, war contractors not doing what they should be doing and charging four times what they should be charging to do it. We see all of the problems that have happened there. We have seen the same thing happen here in the United States where Federal contracts have been let. Mr. Waxman's committee has done incredible work rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the private contractor system. And then they want to turn over the collection system of the IRS to private hands, putting at risk all Americans' private information and documents. They like privatization; they just don't like protecting your privacy. The gentleman from California talked about all kinds of issues but he didn't talk about the root problem that we are trying to address here, and that is stopping bounty hunters from harassing American taxpayers. Finally, Mr. Dreier talked at great length about the McCrery substitute and the fact that Mr. McCrery has not gotten a substitute this year. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this year that I have managed a rule where the Republican substitute has violated the House rules. I am a member of the Blue Dog Coalition as well as being a member of the Rules Committee. I am very proud that for the whole time I have been here as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, we advocated for advancement of the PAYGO rule. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe we need to pay our debts. So we got, when we took over the majority, inserted into the House rules a clause that says we have to pay as we go. We have to do it like every American taxpayer has to run their own home. We have to run this House in a fiscally responsible way. And so we mandated the PAYGO rules. The substitute put forward by the Republicans, for the second time that I have managed a rule anyway, has violated those PAYGO rules. When you don't follow the House rules, you can't expect your amendment to be made in order, Mr. Speaker. I encourage my colleagues to abide by those rules and honor the process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDOZA. I wasn't referring to Mr. English's bill.

Mr. CARDOZA. I was referring to Mr. McCrery's substitute.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to commend my colleague Mr. English. He is a very thoughtful individual and a very good legislator, and I would just say that while his amendment was PAYGO compliant, we were not aware of that until this morning when the tax tables were submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. So last night when the Rules Committee was dealing with this issue, we had no way of knowing whether his substitute was, in fact, PAYGO compliant or not. With regard to Mr. McCrery's substitute, I have it here with me. The substitute that was submitted by Mr. McCrery was, in fact, not PAYGO compliant. Now, Mr. Sessions says that he made the motion to allow it to be PAYGO compliant, but the bill before us at that point in the Rules Committee was not. I would like to say, also, that Mr. English's substitute doesn't deal with the base bill, which is to stop the privatization of tax collection, and that is what the majority is trying to get at today. Now, certainly there are other issues that are worthy of consideration in this institution. AMT is certainly one of them. But in this provision today, the majority wants to bring forward a bill that would stop American taxpayers from being harassed by private bounty hunters. That's the issue before us today. And all the other issues that people are trying to discuss one way or another, they have nothing to do with this base bill and really don't apply to the debate we want to have in the next hour. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to inquire from my colleague if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. CARDOZA. Would the gentleman like to close?

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 719 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 719.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 719 provides for consideration of H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 under the traditional closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3056, implements several measures to protect the interest of taxpayers and the integrity of our tax system. First, it would once and for all repeal the IRS's authority to contract with private debt collection companies. The collection of Federal income taxes is inherently a governmental function and at the crux of what governmental responsibilities should be. This was stated as early as 1819 by Chief Justice Marshall. It was reaffirmed by Congress in 1874, when the Ways and Means Committee said that ``any system of farming the collection of any portion of the revenue of the government is fundamentally wrong.'' Tax farming, giving a private entity the right to collect taxes on a commission basis, has created modern-day bounty hunters who have no regard for the taxpayer, only regard for their company's bottom line. Taxpayers are heavily pressured to reveal their Social Security numbers, last known address, date of birth, and other confidential information over the telephone to private contractors working on commissions of up to 25 percent of their take. In this modern day and age where identity theft runs rampant, why would we want to turn over people's Social Security numbers and who knows what other confidential information to someone who is only out to protect their own bottom line? Noted Princeton economist Paul Krugman recently penned in the New York Times, ``Tax farming went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.'' How right he is. The irony is that we tried this private tax collection scheme in 1996 and promptly abandoned it. Why? Because the IRS's Inspector General found that private contractors regularly violated our own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, threatened the confidentiality of taxpayers' personal information, and on top of all that, cost the government a net revenue loss of $17 million. Despite this past history, the Republican Congress renewed this authority in 2004. What has happened since that renewal? Well, the Federal Government has spent an additional $71 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money and they have collected a grand total of $20 million in tax revenue. That is right, Mr. Speaker; we have lost another $50 million on an inefficient program that experts readily admit does not work. Even more absurd is that had the IRS been given that money, the $71 million, instead, it would have collected almost $1.5 billion. The House has long recognized that this program simply does not work. In fact, language to stop private debt collection has passed on a strong bipartisan basis twice but has not made it into law. But don't just take my word for it. The National Taxpayer Advocate, 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.'' Even past and present IRS Commissioners have repeatedly admitted before Congress that IRS employees could perform this task at far less cost than the private agencies. I firmly believe that when the government actually does something better than the private sector, cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector, then the government should do that job. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that IRS employees are better trained, better equipped and better prepared to handle these important responsibilities. They also protect American citizens' privacy. H.R. 3056 recognizes this reality and restores this fundamental responsibility to the Federal Government, as our Founding Fathers intended. Second, H.R. 3056 includes language based on legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek), which provides tax relief to small businesses and administrative relief to local jurisdictions by delaying implementation of an onerous tax burden. Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, passed by the then-Republican Congress to raise revenue, requires tax withholding of 3 percent on payments to vendors providing property or services to the government beginning in January of 2011. The 3 percent withholding requirement presents a number of administrative and practical challenges for businesses, including reducing the cash flow they need to meet operating expenses, pay suppliers or subcontractors, or meet payroll. They also present several problems for governments, including how State and local governments will be able to comply with this law, much less how the IRS will be able to afford and administer such a requirement. H.R. 3056 takes a commonsense approach to this issue and delays the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement for 1 year. It further calls on the Department of the Treasury to study the compliance issues confronting businesses and government and report the findings to Congress. This measure is supported by State and local governments and a broad array of business organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, among others. H.R. 3056 also clarifies that U.S. citizens who claim to be bona fide residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands receive the same procedural and administrative rights afforded to other U.S. taxpayers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 strictly adheres to the House PAYGO rule. This bill is paid for primarily by eliminating a tax loophole that currently allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying U.S. taxes simply by renouncing their citizenship or terminating their U.S. residency. Despite what you may hear today, let me be clear, closing this loophole has broad, bipartisan support and has been supported by my Republican colleagues. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Meek, and the Ways and Means Committee members for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, this commonsense bill protects taxpayers, preserves the integrity of our tax system, and makes our tax system fairer for all. It deserves strong support of all the Members of this House floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I do not.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we said in our opening statement, tax bills are traditionally closed due to their complexity. Under Democrats, before 1994, they were closed. Under Mr. Dreier's administration in the House Rules Committee under the Republican leadership, they were traditionally closed. Now we continue to maintain that practice. Because tax laws are so complex, late amendments that have not been fully vetted and analyzed are simply too complex to insert into the Tax Code without knowing their full ramifications. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sessions, my colleague from Texas, mentioned that the McCrery substitute was not made in order. He is correct about that. It was not made in order because it violates the PAYGO provisions of our House rules. I have a copy of it right here. It simply does not meet the PAYGO statutory requirements of the House rules. Finally, the Republican privatization bill that had passed in a prior Congress, when it was implemented it spent $71 million to collect $20 million. That is a loss of $50 million. Even with the creative accounting of the Republican ``voodoo math,'' I cannot believe that they are advocating continuation of this program that has lost money. Further, the use of private contractors to collect Federal taxes violates a confidential and fundamental relationship between American taxpayers and the Federal Government. IRS employees have access to a taxpayer's complete tax history, including personal information that is ready identifiable. That should be restricted only to IRS employees. By prohibiting the IRS from hiring private debt collectors, this bill will ensure that the privacy rights of Americans and other confidential information of taxpayers is protected from bounty hunters working on commissions of up to 25 percent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007, stops wasting taxpayer money on programs that cost too much, gives away confidential taxpayer information, and results in taxpayer harassment by bounty hunters and simply never has and never will work. It didn't work in the early 1800s, it didn't work in the late 1800s, and it doesn't work in the year 2007. Mr. Sessions mentioned that there are these Republican best practices that would enhance our collection methods. Well, let's talk about that. The Republican bill spent $71 million to collect $20 million, resulting in a $51 million loss. If Mr. Sessions wants to claim those as Republican best practices, he can do that. However, if the Federal Government employees, the traditional men and women who have served our country honorably, if they had had the ability to use that same $71 million, they would have collected $1.5 billion in taxes owed to this Treasury, $1.5 billion that could be used to, well, maybe fund SCHIP so that our poor young children could get the health care they deserve. Mr. Sessions talks about that this bill only has 11 cosponsors. Well, this bill is a compilation of bills that was put together in the last few weeks, and, in fact, the base bills that this bill is based upon, Mr. Van Hollen's bill has 156 coauthors and Mr. Meek of Florida's bill has over 100. So there is wide support for this bill. The public should not believe that there are just a few folks thinking this is a good idea. This has wide support. It has had a number of hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and there has been great testimony with regard to the fact that the current program put in by the Republicans in the last few years has not and will not work and should not continue to be allowed as the law of the land. H.R. 3056 does something very fundamental. It protects taxpayers and ensures their privacy. It addresses withholding concerns raised by business and local government. It cracks down on yet another tax loophole for the wealthy that has been left open under the prior Congresses for far too long, and, most importantly, it continues to make our taxes fair for all. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deserves this House's strong support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. Mr. HERGER Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule on H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. This rule, on legislation to halt collection of previously uncollected tax debts, wrongly prohibits any Republican amendments. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery, would have allowed for consideration of full repeal of the 3 percent withholding burden, which is so important to thousands of U.S. businesses. This was rejected by the Rules Committee on Tuesday evening. This rule stifles debate and is counter-productive to the bipartisanship we've worked for this year on the 3 percent withholding repeal. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.