Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment strikes language in title I of the bill which creates a joint account between the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to fund the internal audit investigation functions of the IRS and requires the IRS inspector to report to the deputy Secretary of the Treasury rather than to the IRS commissioner. The $106,606,000 in funding that the bill provides for IRS internal audit functions would instead remain in the IRS processing assistance and management account. My understanding is that this provision was included in the bill in response to concerns that the IRS inspector is subject to too much control by the IRS commissioner. It was intended to give the inspector more autonomy and independence. However, the Committee on Ways and Means is very concerned that this provision would actually impair rather than enhance the effectiveness of the inspector's internal audit investigation functions and increases the risk of politicizing the inspection service. We believe that the present management structure for the inspector should be retained, and I urge support of my amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. We did run into the same problem with the taxpayer service representatives and felt that they were saying about problems that the taxpayers were having with the IRS was not getting to us, and so we did add provisions in the taxpayers bill of rights to require direct reporting, and between now and conference we need to look at that mechanism. We have not been able to sort of clear that under the short timeframe we have been working on because of the nature of the inspector general's work and the police powers involved and so on and so forth, but we do need to assure that that information does get to the committees of oversight so that we can be certain that the agency is responding appropriately.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] very much for those kind remarks.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to be flexible on this issue. My final point is with regard to provisions in the bill relating to tax debt collections. The bill transfers $13 million from the IRS to Treasury to initiate a second private sector debt collection program, and provides an additional $13 million for continuation of the current private debt collection IRS initiative established by the fiscal year 1996 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriation. As my colleague knows, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, which I chair, recently held a hearing earlier to explore the idea of using private firms to assist in collecting Federal tax debts. I supported the program you initiated last year so we can determine whether privatizing some tax debt collection functions is a good business decision for the Federal Government. I also applaud the gentleman for the language he included last year to guarantee that taxpayers rights are fully protected under the 1996 program. The private contractors who were recently awarded contracts under the program are subject to the disclosure laws: The Privacy Act, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and applicable sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. However, I do want to emphasize my belief that the use of private collection firms to collect Federal tax debts is something that needs to be fully and fairly tested before the program is greatly expanded. under current law, private contractors cannot be compensated out of the proceeds of amounts they assist in collecting, so the pilot is being conducted using appropriated funds. Since this does not allow for the most efficient test of the effectiveness of private contractors, the Committee on Ways and Means is in the process of developing legislation which we hope to be able to consider in the near future to allow IRS to expand the use of private collection firms and test alternative compensation arrangements that are not permissible under present law. Thus, I urge the gentleman to drop the $13 million that the bill transfers from IRS to Treasury to initiate a second private sector debt collection program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate that clarification. I am also concerned about the provision to transfer TSM procurement activities, including responsibility for writing the request for proposal to the Department of Defense. I question whether it will be helpful, at this point in the process, to put responsibility for contracting out TSM in the hands of DOD employees who have not had any previous experience with IRS computer systems or the agency's business needs. While I agree with the gentleman that IRS' long-term track record on TSM has not been good, the new management structure put into place by IRS and the Department of the Treasury has come a long way toward addressing the TSM problems that the gentleman has brought to light in his oversight of this program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that the bill's funding for Information Systems rests on the assumption that significant salary and overhead savings can be achieved next year, but I am concerned that it will be very difficult to actually realize those savings within the fiscal year. If this concern is verified as the bill moves forward, can the gentleman assure me that he will work in conference to restore full funding for IRS's operational computer systems?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I also have several concerns about provisions in the bill relating to the Tax Systems Modernization Program. We all agree that the IRS has not adequately managed this program and that changes are needed to ensure that TSM is successful. However, the bill contains language fencing off all TSM funds until IRS establishes a restructured contractual arrangement with the private sector to deliver the balance of the program. Included within the fenced-off funds is nearly $170 million for currently operational TSM systems, such as Telefile and Electronic Fraud Detection. Since it is unlikely that these contractual arrangements will be in place by the beginning of the fiscal year, I am concerned that the fencing off language could have the effect of prohibiting IRS from using these operational TSM systems for some period of time next year.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his clarification on these important issues. While I remain concerned about the adequacy of funding levels provided for the IRS, I recognize the challenges the gentleman faced in putting this bill together, and I am satisfied by the chairman's commitment that he will address these issues in conference with the Senate. I commend Chairman Lightfoot for his responsiveness and willingness to listen to the concerns of the Committee on Ways and Means. Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut Mrs. JOHNSON OF Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy with regard to items contained in the bill which affect the Internal Revenue Service. I want to take this opportunity though to commend Chairman Lightfoot for his hard work and diligent efforts to provide effective oversight of the IRS. With an annual budget of $7.3 billion, the IRS consumes nearly 60 percent of all of the funding under his subcommittee's jurisdiction and touches the lives of Americans more directly than any other Federal agency. I appreciate the chairman's dedication to making the IRS a more effective and efficient agency, and to improve the IRS's accountability in its handling of the massive tax systems modernization program. Having said that, there are a number of provisions in this bill which give me cause for concern, and I hope that the gentleman can clarify several points for me. First, I note that there is a large reduction made to the account which funds IRS Information Systems. While much of this is to the TSM Program, there appears to be a significant reduction to Legacy systems which are needed to support IRS returns processing and compliance functions. Total funding for non-TSM information systems appears to be $179.2 million below fiscal year 1996 operating levels. I am concerned that reductions of this magnitude could have a negative effect on the IRS's ability to efficiently manage the 1997 return filing season. What is the rationale behind reducing this account?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] for a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes language in title I of the bill. parliamentary inquiry

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I am happy to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, without prejudice for tomorrow.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I could do that, but my amendment is very, very brief. It would save me coming back tomorrow.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to recommit. Clearly there is a need to understand how we enable people who are committed to one another to have appropriate legal rights and responsibilities with regard to each other. All this study does is to ask the GAO to look at the rights and responsibilities one has under a marriage contract and the rights and responsibilities that domestic partners have under current State and Federal law. We simply need to know this information. Without question, marriage has been the pillar of social organization over time in every society, because marriage helps to sustain the development of love, loyalty, commitment, and responsibility. Domestic partner relationships are not marriage, and that is what this bill says. But domestic partner relationships do encourage commitment, responsibility, love, and loyalty, and I think it is important that our society rise to the challenge of finding what legal entitles we need to develop to allow people who want to take responsibility for one another, who want to, over time, legally share responsibilities for health care, share responsibilities for planning funerals and so on and so forth, how we help them do that. This is just a study to get the information. We are proposing it in a legal form because we want to acknowledge that this information is important to us as a society; that all relationships of commitment are important to a stable society. And in the passage of this bill, which I intend to support, we do not intend to denigrate other relationships of integrity.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Lowey amendment to lift the current ban on Federal funding for human embryo research. Lifting this ban would not allow the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes. Embryos would be donated by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment, who would offer them after their treatment was successful. These are pre-implantation embryos. We must keep in mind that this kind of research does not involve human embryos or fetuses developed in utero or aborted human fetal tissue. Much like our current organ donor efforts, the donation of embryos can improve the health and well-being of millions of Americans--and even save lives. Human embryo research can enable hospitals to create tissue banks which would store tissue that could be used for bone marrow transplants, spinal cord injuries, and skin replacement for burn victims. Medical research on human embryos also shows promise for the treatment and prevention of some forms of infertility, cancers, and genetic disorders. This research may also lead to a reduction in miscarriages and better contraceptive methods. The National Institutes of Health and their human embryo research panel has recommended how to address the important moral and ethical issues raised by the use of human embryos in research. The panel developed guidelines to govern this kind of federally funded research. Their strict standards ensure that the promise of human benefit from embryo research in compelling enough to justify the research project. Most importantly, whether or not we allow Federal funding and regulation of pre-implantation embryo research, this research will continue to be done in the private sector, but without the consistent ethical and scientific scrutiny that the Federal Government and NIH can provide. I know that our differences on this issue come from deeply held religious and philosophical views. And those views, everyone's views, need to be respected. But the potential therapeutic and scientific benefit this research holds must be taken into account and the value of Federal protocols governing this research is also important as we move forward. Please support the Lowey amendment to allow this vital research to continue.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute amendment. This amendment, title X, already requires that providers encourage family participation in reproductive health decisions, and this amendment strengthens that mandate. I agree that parental involvement should be encouraged, encouraged, not mandated. In fact, in order to encourage teens to seek necessary reproductive health services, virtually every State in the country has enacted legislation to permit minors to receive care for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent. Many States have already put statutes on their books that allow minors to obtain birth control information governed carefully by State law. We should not override those statutes. States are closer to this problem than we are. Teenagers denied contraceptive services do indulge less responsibly.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This small program has made an enormous difference in creating among girls in America the belief that they have a wide range of opportunities in our society. One of our biggest problems right now is teen pregnancy, and the teen-to-teen pregnancy prevention is enabling girls to see that math and science open worlds of opportunity, that staying in school matters, that self-esteen is there for them to get. This program funds projects that do exactly that for girls. We must not pull back on a single dollar that can help our girls understand that life is full of opportunity.