Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I understand how people can get emotional about some of the arguments with respect to these bills. My good friend from New Jersey is clearly agitated, and I understand that. But I would tell him that some very good lawyers have looked at the language in the bill, which is different from current law language with respect to providing benefits to illegal immigrants. And categories two and three, which the gentleman cited, ``lawfully present in the United States'' or ``permanently residing in the United States under color of law,'' do present problems. First, there are multiple definitions of what ``lawfully present'' means in current law and regulation. Even more fundamentally, literally millions of students and tourists and other ``nonimmigrants'' are ``lawfully present'' in the United States each year. The provision in the bill appears intended to make these groups eligible for TAA benefits despite their not being authorized to work in the United States in the first place. And the category of ``permanently residing under color of law'' is still more problematic. Even though the welfare reform law sought to do away with this ambiguous category, it continues to be used in some programs. SAA regulations, for example, define PRUCOL, permanently residing in the United States under color of law, to include, among other categories, ``aliens living in the United States with the knowledge and permission of the INS/CIS and whose departure that agency does not contemplate enforcing.'' That is, those who are illegally present and who could be deported but are not. This category could include individuals who were originally authorized to work in the United States for a temporary period of time, lost that job, and under current law were supposed to leave the United States but remained despite the requirement that they leave. It could also include individuals who enter the United States illegally in the first place who are known to the government to be here but who are not being deported. So, Mr. Speaker, I understand how we can all get emotional about this, but the fact is, at least according to the lawyers that have looked at this information and advised us, the bill does loosen current law with respect to verifying that people who are here illegally are not due the benefits. As the gentleman said, it appears that the intent of the bill is not to qualify those people, but the language of the bill, unfortunately, according to some very good lawyers, might, indeed, allow qualification for those who are here illegally. Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to get into all of that. But the fact is that the bill that is before us, I believe, goes way too far in spending, way too far in increasing taxes, and, for those two things alone, should be rejected.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mr. McKeon, I want to point out that the underlying bill, as described by my friend from Washington, does, indeed, double, and then even later triples, the TAA training budget when nearly $300 million of the current budget lies unused. That's just an example of how we think the underlying bill that we oppose goes way too far in expanding this program needlessly. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee. I'm sorry, I've been calling it the Education and Workforce Committee. My apologies to the chairman and to the members of that committee. It is now the Education and Labor Committee, and Mr. McKeon is the ranking member.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republican substitute before the House at this time does not eviscerate anything, much less the TAA program which is reauthorized in the substitute for 5 years exactly as it is. The benefits are the same. The amounts are the same. I don't know where the last speaker got his information, but the substitute certainly does not eviscerate the TAA program. It reauthorizes the existing program for 5 years. Then, in addition, we make some changes in the law that allow those benefits under the TAA to be used in instances where under current law they can't be used, and I have described one of those already in my earlier presentation. So I hope this House doesn't get the wrong impression about this substitute. It certainly endorses the TAA program. We are for the TAA program. We think it is important. But we think our bill gives a lot more flexibility that is needed in the program and some accountability in the program that is needed. In addition to that, we do provide additional funds in our bill, and it is paid for under the PAYGO rules of the House. I just wanted to make that clear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. McCRERY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, unless the cavalry comes riding over the hill, I only have one remaining speaker.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that service workers today are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, and that is the primary form of income support under TAA. But to expand to service workers all of the other array of benefits under the TAA may be premature. In a bill that passed this Congress and was signed by the President earlier this year, there was a mandate for a study to look at service workers and the impact of trade on service workers. We don't yet have, obviously, the results of that study, so it may be premature to just willy-nilly offer all these benefits to service workers. And while Mr. Moran spoke about some projection of losses of service worker jobs over the next 10 or so years, in an April 2007 paper, the Peterson Institute for International Economics evaluated data on the extent of the impact of off-shoring on service sector labor markets in the United States, and their review of the data concluded that just under 1 million American service workers lost their jobs from 2004 to 2005 due to mass layoffs of 50 or more employees, while 8 million service sector jobs were created during that time. And of those 1 million jobs lost, only about 4 percent could be attributed to off- shoring or offshore outsourcing. So I think the question of the impact of trade on the service sector is certainly an open one, and the House may be well advised to wait for the results of the study that we mandated in previous legislation that passed this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks of my friend from Washington, I would point out that using Bureau of Labor statistics, the average cost of training under current law is only $3,000. So the $8,000 New Economy Scholarship in our substitute more than doubles the amount available. In the case of remedial education, the scholarship amounts to an extra $1,000, nearly tripling the average cost of training. The most common provider of occupational training is the local community or technical college. The limit of $8,000 over 2 years is significantly greater than the average cost of a 2-year program at a community college, and is similar to limits that apply to other Federal postsecondary assistance. Under current law, Mr. Speaker, while there is no specific monetary limit, as there is in our substitute, the cost of training must be reasonable and that reasonableness is decided by the various States. So the amount that is available is subject to judgment and to uncertainty. Our substitute removes that uncertainty so that a person knows going in how much he is going to have to spend on training. Our substitute significantly enhances access to training by removing additional eligibility criteria and allowing people who do get new jobs to use the training benefit unlike current law. So we expand current law in that regard with respect to training benefits. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Washington has listened to my rebuttal and is convinced now that we don't gut the training benefits in TAA. If he is not, though, if he will vote for the substitute, I look forward to working with him to smooth out the complaints that he has. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to at this time yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. First, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for requesting unanimous consent that every Member may have 5 days to revise and extend his remarks. The reason I say that is we on the minority side just got this bill at 8 p.m. last night, so it is going to take a few days to understand the changes that have been made, and so we may want to revise and extend our remarks when this debate is over today. This is the third time we have debated a measure like this along these lines. I am probably going to repeat some of the things I have said earlier because, in our cursory examination of the bill at least, it doesn't appear to have changed very much. The bill does nothing, for example, to address the cliff in the funding of SCHIP, so a future Congress will still face a choice of throwing off the SCHIP rolls 6.5 million kids or raising taxes by about $40 billion. It still relies on a declining revenue source, tobacco taxes, to fund a growing program which is likely to exacerbate the funding cliff issue. In short, the legislation remains fiscally irresponsible. Further, despite some window dressing on this, it appears illegal immigrants will be able to use fraudulent Social Security numbers and still be able to get SCHIP and Medicaid benefits. It still allows States to enroll higher income children at least through 2010 and continues to allow States to use a system of so-called income disregards to set just about any income limit they please. I support SCHIP. I want SCHIP to be extended, but this so-called new legislation seems to do absolutely nothing to address the serious flaws in the previous proposals. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to allow Mr. Camp of Michigan, ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, to allocate the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to create an SCHIP program with a stable funding source. It was a truly paid-for program. Throughout the process this year, we've been talking about the fact that this SCHIP reauthorization that's before the House today is not paid for. It's paid for only if you accept the budget gimmick that is used to make it appear on paper over the 10-year budget window that the program is paid for. But I don't think any of us realized just how steep that cliff in the bill is until today, because last night my staff received from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office new numbers that show very clearly that under the bill that's before us today, total enrollment in SCHIP is expected to drop by 6.5 million children in the second five years of the program. Does anybody believe that is going to happen? Of course not. But the way the bill is designed, that's what would happen. We know that's not going to be reality. Under this bill, the way it's designed, Democrats would have people believe that SCHIP enrollment, kids enrolled in this program, will drop to only 1.3 million by 2017. Under a realistic expansion of the program, which the President has proposed and we support, there would be 2.9 million kids enrolled in the program in 2017. So under this bill that's before us today, you'd have 1.6 million fewer kids enrolled in SCHIP than you would under the President's budget. That's not realistic. We know that's not going to happen. So how does that problem get fixed after 5 years? Massive tax increases. That's how it gets fixed. This House will be back here having to finance the real costs of the then-existent SCHIP program over the next 5 years, which CBO estimates will require about another $40 billion in revenues over and above the new $35 billion that this bill would impose on the American taxpayers. So there is a better way. It's the way we created for this program in the first place, a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, truly fiscally responsible program to help kids in need. I hope that the majority will be willing to join with us, all of us, to create that bipartisan program again when this veto is sustained. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the Speaker for that admonition. Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hulshof, a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be permitted to allocate the remainder of the time on my side.

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I have with me, I am going to submit this for inclusion in the Record, a page from a report from the Congressional Budget Office that we received last night. This one page puts the lie to the assertion that this bill is paid for, at least in any terms that a reasonable person would agree that the bill is actually paid for. What this sheet says, in 2012, under the March 2007 baseline, CBO estimated 3.3 million people, not just children, 3.3 million people would be covered. Under the President's proposal, in his budget, CBO estimated 4 million people would be covered in 2012. If the current program with all the exceptions and waivers were continued, CBO says that in 2012, 5.3 million children will be covered. CBO says under the bill on the floor in 2012, 7.8 million people would be covered. But then they say, in 2017, 5 years later, under the President's budget, 2.9 million people would be covered. Under the current program, with all the exceptions and waivers, 5.6, and under this bill, 1.3 million people. So you go down from 7.8 million to 1.3 million over 5 years, and you are telling me that that is going to take place? It is not. You know it. And you are going to have to pay for it to the tune, the CBO says, of $40 billion.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it's my sad duty to inform the House of the death of former Member Joe D. Waggoner, Jr., from Louisiana. Congressman Waggoner served this House with distinction on the Ways and Means Committee, as a subcommittee chairman on the Ways and Means, served in the House for nearly 18 years, and Congressman Waggoner passed away this weekend. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, in memory of Congressman Waggoner, for the House to please rise and have a moment of silence.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I'm pleased that the chairman and I have forged a good working relationship. That relationship has allowed us to work together on several important issues, including trade and some tax bills. Just last week, for example, I stood on the floor and joined with the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle to approve a bill helping relieve homeowners of the tax burden that comes with having a mortgage written down or foreclosed. But the chairman and I know that there are times when we will not agree, and today is just such an occasion. The central feature of this bill is a repeal of a program at the Internal Revenue Service that allows the service to contract with private collection agencies, known as PCAs, to secure payment of unpaid taxes from individuals who have admitted they owe the government money, but simply have not actually paid the money. It's true, as the majority likes to argue, that the IRS's own taxpayer advocate has urged Congress to repeal the PCA program. But some of her reasons are a bit suspect. For example, her report criticized the use of private collection agencies because, by doing so, ``the IRS has separated taxpayers from its world class customer service.'' And while I agree that IRS employees are competent, hardworking public servants, and I commend them for the job they do, surely the person who wrote that did so with tongue firmly planted in cheek. After all, how many of us, in conversations with our constituents, have heard from them that the IRS is known for their customer service? More importantly, though, IRS reviews of the PCA program show that customer service satisfaction with those PCA programs is, in fact, very high. In their comments on the taxpayer advocate's report, the IRS noted that ``of the nearly 19,000 cases assigned to PCAs, only 108 taxpayers have requested that their accounts be handled by the IRS. There have been 31 reported contractual complaints, all of which have been reviewed in depth. There have been no instances of fraud or misuse of taxpayer information.'' That record is not surprising, considering the extensive training PCA employees receive and the limited information they are provided. That, I should point out, stands in sharp contrast to the many documented lapses of the IRS in protecting confidential taxpayer information. Program opponents often suggest that there is something intrinsic about tax collection that should preclude it being contracted out to the private sector. This argument is hard to reconcile with a few basic facts. First, the PCAs are not adjudicating tax liability. They are merely helping to ensure the government receives the amounts the individuals have already admitted they owe in taxes but have not paid. Second, PCAs are used throughout the Federal Government to collect unpaid obligations. According to the IRS, since 1982, PCAs have been used by various branches of the Federal Government, collecting nearly $700 million in fiscal year 2005 alone. Third, of the 43 States with a personal income tax, the vast majority of those use private agencies to help collect from delinquent taxpayers. A hearing on this issue showed the members of the committee the skill and patience PCA employees use to avoid disclosing any confidential taxpayer information. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the PCA program be modified to provide these contractors with additional tools that will both improve their recovery rate and reduce the possibility of taxpayer confusion about the purpose of calls and letters from the PCAs. Even though these agencies lack many of the tools of the IRS, such as lien and levy, they are successfully collecting millions of dollars in unpaid taxes that the IRS has not and very likely would not ever get around to collecting. The majority will no doubt argue that the cost to the taxpayers would be even less if the IRS went after these obligations. But the fact is they are not, and any such comparisons are apples to oranges. The IRS is currently ill-equipped to engage in the massive outbound call operation the PCAs use to collect these obligations. In the first year of the program's operation, more than 90,000 cases have been placed with the PCAs. More than 7,300 have resulted in full payment, and more than 2,600 taxpayers have entered into installment agreements. The PCAs have already collected $32 million in gross revenue that would not have been collected otherwise, making this a tax-gap closing program with a proven track record. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that killing this program will result in the loss of over $1 billion in revenue over the coming decade. Considering the difficulty of meeting the terms of PAYGO, it's rather disappointing that the majority would actually find it necessary to raise taxes elsewhere in order to terminate a program that is helping to close the tax gap. In fact, during committee markup, members of the Ways and Means Committee suggested a number of ways to use the money that the majority is spending today by killing this program, including delaying the implementation of a withholding rule on Federal contractors or providing penalty relief to taxpayers who are underwithholding their 2007 taxes because they are unaware of the coming hit of the AMT, which the majority has yet to pass, but I'm sure that we will get around to that. Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected on party-line votes in the committee, and, of course, we are not being given a chance to vote on those today in this House. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Brady and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.