José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I get tired of saying this, but it has to be said. I realize that the other side's desire is to bring the IRS down to nothing. It is a constitutional question. We have the power to collect taxes. One would argue that we must have a department that collects taxes. They may not always be the department--the agency--we want them to be. Both sides, whether one believes it or not, were outraged that something wrong might have been done, but to suggest and paint with a broad brush the whole IRS and say that everyone there at the senior level is not worthy of a bonus or not worthy of our respect is really to do a disservice to public service employees. These folks do a job. They do a job on a daily basis. Are there problems with the IRS? There have always been problems at the IRS. Has the IRS been an agency that is loved by the American public? No, because we as Americans would love somehow to do everything we need to do, but have taxes that are either very low or nonexistent. That is not a knock on us. We would all rather pay less taxes than we pay, but we continuously just spend time knocking and knocking. If you measure the time that we have spent on this bill so far and you measure how much of that time has been allocated to the IRS and to bringing it down, not to helping it in any way, not to coming up with any solutions--the whole argument has been they did something wrong, we are going to punish them. We are not talking about children. We are not talking about a foreign government that attacked us. We are talking about an agency that might not have done everything the way we want them to do it, and therefore, we have to use our resources, our power, and our legislative ability to make them do a better job, to help them along the way, not to destroy them. So here we are saying if you have executives at the higher level that are doing a good job, you can't help them in any way. You have to ignore that. Now, we talk about morale. We talk about morale with our staff. We talk about morale with our Membership. Why do we have so many Members who are retiring? If you asked them, a lot of them are retiring because we don't get along the way we used to or maybe because we spend so much time on wasteful issues. So we can't paint with a brush the whole IRS. We have to find a way to help, to make them a better agency--yes, to use tough love. Absolutely, I will be the first one to agree to that and to join the majority in doing that, but this whole word of punishing of a worthless institution, of a corrupt institution, of an institution that does not follow the law, that is not true, that is not fair, and that is not correct. That is why this amendment is misguided, and it may do just the opposite, like so many of these amendments. By punishing, you bring down morale, and you bring down the support of those who could help us do a better job at the IRS like we all would like. I hoped that we would get Mr. Gosar to withdraw his amendment, but his facial expression tells me that I am crazy in asking that question. You don't have to agree that I am crazy in asking that question, but I think we should defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is primarily concerned with records management at the IRS, which does not surprise us--the IRS again. However, this bill already contains a provision preventing the use of funds by the IRS to violate these very same sections of the code. In other words, the bill that we are debating today, the full bill, already accomplishes what the gentleman seeks to do. Every agency is already required to follow Federal records management law, so this amendment seems particularly unnecessary. I realize Members on the other side want to continue to issue press releases stating how tough they are on the IRS, but there is no need to restate current law. I think that this one is different in the sense that while other amendments that I may not approve of or support speak to an issue that hasn't been spoken to before or repeat something we have dealt with before, this one speaks to an issue that Mr. Crenshaw already took care of in the bill. That is my opposition to it, and that is why I think the amendment is unnecessary. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. 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.'' It also adds a requirement on D.C. that it doesn't add anywhere else. It imposes additional duties by requiring law enforcement or the D.C. Council to determine what is prohibited by Federal law before they are allowed to legislate. We know that folks like to sound good on certain issues by legislating from here, but the city council should not be asked to incur these extra duties that they don't have now. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I think the mistake we are making here is the one we have been making all day. Not only is it targeted only at the IRS, which seems to be the desire to continue to do this for the next 24 hours or for so long as this bill lasts, but secondly, it paints it with a wide brush. If you say no conferences of this type or if you limit the number of conferences, okay, we could discuss that; but to say that one agency in the Federal Government cannot have any kind of conferences, none at all--zero, nada--that really speaks to just a continuous desire to destroy the IRS. Now, there were issues concerning the conferences. There were issues concerning the conferences for other agencies. We have dealt with that. We can deal with this. But to say no conferences at all is to suggest that an agency cannot operate the way it needs to at times. So I think that this is just another attack on the IRS. It makes for good headlines, even at this time of night. I think it is the wrong thing to do, and I would hope that we could oppose it or that the gentleman will withdraw the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment. The only difference here, Mr. Chairman, is that we are not attacking the IRS. Now we are attacking the Financial Services Subcommittee. The fact of life is that this committee took the biggest hit of any subcommittee in the House. And while I may disagree with how some of the bill came out, I have made it clear to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) that what I disagree with the most are the riders and the allocation. With a different allocation, we would have had a different bill. So to now cut 1 percent from the committee that took the biggest hit is really to just to try to cripple the bill completely, and it serves no purpose other than to be able to say that you cut it. Now, it would be nice to see if these kinds of things were mean, what happened on the military budget every so often, but we are not going to see that. We are only going to see it on bills like this one, which really services a lot of people. I think that the chairman is right. I join him in opposing this amendment, and I hope that it will be defeated.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is really a mean amendment to single out one city, one city that is hurting; to single out labor when, in fact, it is not labor, but it is the people that have those pension plans and now may not have a pension plan, to single them out. With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I am sure there have been many instances throughout history and in recent years when your area, your State, has been helped by Federal dollars when it was hurting, and we all got together and did that, be it a flood, be it a fire, be it a natural disaster. Whatever it may be, we came together to help. Detroit has its problems, and Detroit might have made some mistakes. But to single it out in an amendment and to say that we cannot help in any way, shape, or form is really mean, mean-spirited and wrong. It may look good to single an urban center out. It may look good to single out a place that is hurting. But that is not the American way. The American way, I can tell you, as a New Yorker, when New York was hurting, people came to its aid. When we were attacked, we came to its aid. Sure, this is different, but Detroit, it's hurting right now. And to single it out on this House floor at 10 minutes to 8, at this time, to single it out as not being worthy of Federal help, is really just wrong. And then to take the opportunity to attack organized labor by suggesting that somehow they are to blame and therefore they should not get any help is also mean-spirited. So I have seen, in the time that I have been here, difficult amendments. But this one is one that really takes the cake. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have supported bailing out banks and financial institutions that were deemed too large to fail. We were all for saving the auto industry, and I was for it, too. We were all for making sure that big institutions did not fail. And while I questioned it, many of us went along with it. And here to single out Detroit at its worst moment when it is hurting like no city has hurt in a long time is just the wrong thing to do. If this is what the gentlewoman wants to do, I guess there is no way to stop her, but I would really wish that she would take a moment to think about this before she goes any further with this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a point of order mainly because we haven't seen this text or the amendment until this very moment. In fact, we still haven't seen it.

Mr. SERRANO. First, I wish to withdraw my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I do have, and I know it comes at a different time, but I do have letters from different groups opposing the amendment from the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, including the gentleman who gets credit for inventing the Internet, and I am not talking about Vice President Gore, I am speaking about someone else. National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors July 15, 2014. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The National League of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) strongly urges you to oppose any amendment to HR 5016 that would hamstring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from taking any action on--indeed, even discussing--the issue of state laws that prohibit or restrict public and public/private broadband projects. It is clear that such laws harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, and hamper work force development. The United States must compete in a global economy in which affordable access to advanced communications networks is playing an increasingly significant role. As the FCC noted in challenging broadband providers and state and municipal community leaders to come together to develop at least one gigabit community in all 50 states by 2015: ``The U.S. needs a critical mass of gigabit communities nationwide so that innovators can develop next-generation applications and services that will drive economic growth and global competitiveness.'' This is especially true in rural America. The private sector alone cannot enable the United States to take full advantage of the opportunities that advanced communications networks can create in virtually every area of life. As a result, federal, state, and local efforts are taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support economic development and job creation, especially in economically distressed areas. But such efforts are being thwarted in some areas by State laws that prohibit or restrict municipalities from working with private broadband providers, or developing themselves, if necessary, the advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local businesses development, foster work force retraining, and boost employment in economically underachieving areas. Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public entities across America are ready, willing, and able to do their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband connectivity to all Americans. State barriers to public broadband are counterproductive to the achievement of these goals. Efforts to strip funding from the FCC to even discuss this issue, let alone take action, are misplaced and wrong. Please oppose any amendment to HR 5016 or any other measure that could significantly impair community broadband deployments or public/private partnerships. Sincerely, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.

Mr. SERRANO. Whatever happened to localism or local control? This amendment means the Federal Government will tell every local citizen, mayor, and county council member that they may not act in their own best interests. Any such amendment is an attack on the rights of individual citizens speaking through their local leaders to determine if their broadband needs are being met. Congresswoman Blackburn only has to drive an hour and a half down Interstate 24 to Chattanooga to see where the city-owned electric utility owns a broadband network. It charges $70 per month, enough to cover expenses but affordable enough to attract businesses. Her State passed a bill to prevent nearby towns from joining Chattanooga and to block other communities from doing themselves. Companies have moved jobs or expanded in Chattanooga after learning that the minimum connection speed on the city-owned network was faster than the maximum they had available at headquarters. Preemption will not force anyone to do anything that the municipalities alone don't want to do. This is not about forcing States to do anything, but instead stopping States from choking grassroots competition and stopping States from blocking faster networks or new networks where none exist. It may sound one way, but it is a total different interpretation that we have, and this amendment could really hurt--in fact, may even hurt the efforts that she claims she wants to put forth. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that Chairman Upton has legislation and has spoken out on this issue, and the whole issue here is to allow cities to do what they need to do without having the major cable companies and so on lobby the States and stop them from doing so. Broadband is something that we need to expand--that may sound like a pun--to make it broader, not to make it limited. It should be available everywhere, and it should be available in every possible place--rural, suburban, inner city, in homes, in schools. We have to build the infrastructure to make that happen. Again, I repeat, I really think that her intent is not being met by her amendment, and that is why I oppose it and hope we would all oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, there is a contradiction with what the gentlewoman says because, on one hand, she doesn't want government involved in localities, and on the other hand, she wants to tell localities how to act. On the other hand, she doesn't want us to tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission how to act, so it becomes very confusing. This is an issue we should leave to the discretion of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is not something we should be micromanaging the CPSC on. Furthermore, it is a proposed rule, and the CPSC is simply reviewing comments at this stage, and that is important to note. They are simply reviewing comments at this stage. We in this body should let the process of issuing rules play out, as is required in law, instead of cherry-picking where and when we want to interfere. This is simply not an area of overregulation, since no regulation is yet in effect, so this amendment is unnecessary. I oppose the amendment, and I hope my colleagues will as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this agency is one of the better agencies. Every so often, we read about baby seats and blankets and all kinds of issues that affect our communities and our daily lives. We should stop trying to attack it, as some people do. I just think that this is not a good amendment and that it should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am saddened to have to rise in opposition to this legislation today. As a long-time appropriator, I remember the days when we were always able to come together to determine the funding levels for our government in a bipartisan manner and with little partisan warfare. Unfortunately, this bill is not a product of those times. I do not say this to blame Chairman Crenshaw or Chairman Rogers, as they have always listened to the concerns that our side has had and have tried to accommodate us when they could. Mr. Crenshaw is a great working partner, and he knows that that famous line is really true in this case: it is not personal; it is about this issue. There are many things we have been able to agree on as a result, but they have also been forced to listen to a portion of their caucus that is not interested in the business of governing, and as a result, the good portions of this bill are overwhelmed by the problems that this legislation has. Let me discuss just a few of the more serious shortfalls of this bill, starting with a seriously inadequate allocation. This subcommittee received an unacceptably low 302(b) allocation that is $566 million below last year's bill. Percentage wise, this is a cut of 2.6 percent, a level that no other subcommittee has been forced to take. The result is that there are several agencies in this bill that are not funded properly. Primary among these is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is funded at $10.95 billion, a cut of $341 million below last year. This means the agency would operate at a level that is below sequestration-- funding levels that were already grossly inadequate. I assume this is being done both as some sort of collective punishment of the Exempt Organizations unit for the problems associated with their scrutiny of liberal and conservative 501(c)(4) organizations, and as one final attempt to hinder the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We already heard from the chairman that they don't think this committee should be involved with the Affordable Care Act. We keep forgetting that it was passed by both Houses, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. These actions are irresponsible, and they do more to hurt the American people than does the IRS. Rather than investing in further training to prevent the problems that happened previously or ensuring that we have the resources to go after tax cheats, the majority has chosen to play politics with the agency that brings in the vast majority of our Nation's revenue. Unfortunately, these funding levels will prevent the agency from collecting money from tax cheats, expand the tax gap, and increase our deficit. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility. The Securities and Exchange Commission is also severely underfunded at a level of $1.4 billion. This is $300 million below the request and is simply insufficient to allow the agency to properly oversee Wall Street and protect investors, including many retirees who have 401(k) and pension plans that are invested in the marketplace. Both parties have created additional responsibilities for the SEC in recent years, but funding has not kept pace. If we keep asking the agency to do more with less, then we cannot be surprised if we experience another financial crisis. There are numerous other cuts to the bill that are harmful as well, including the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission, cuts to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration, all of which have negative impacts on the operations of our Federal Government and private sector job growth. However, I believe that the biggest impediment to reaching compromise on this bill is the large number of partisan riders that have been added. Let me name just a few of the more excessive, all of which are major concerns to our side of the aisle. There are riders preventing the IRS from implementing the Affordable Care Act and from reforming the 501(c)(4) regulations, which have caused so much confusion and abuse. There is a rider limiting Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on people-to-people visas. There is a rider preventing the SEC from requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose their campaign donations to their shareholders, even though there is no indication that the agency has plans to do so. There is a rider that prevents the provision of abortion services in multistate health plans under the Affordable Care Act. There are riders preventing the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide legal abortion services to low-income women and to determine its own local criminal justice laws with regard to marijuana. This is, by no means, an exhaustive list. The number of riders on this bill seems endless. I have no doubt that we will be asked to add even more to this list during debate on this bill. Before we do that, I would point out that we have spent a lot of time this year discussing how to ensure a return to regular order in the appropriations process. I would suggest that it is extremely difficult to do so when the majority attempts to pack legislation with a laundry list of partisan priorities. This is irresponsible governing, at best, and they make a mockery of one of this institution's most important functions, to fund the Federal Government. When we choose politics over the needs of the American people, we should not be surprised when those same people become cynical about their elected representatives. The appropriations process is not and should not be the place to add every partisan priority that the other side cannot pass through the regular legislative process. I feel confident that the American people would rather just have us get on with our jobs, instead of rehashing the same arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and many other issues. Our side will attempt to remedy some of these defects through the amendment process; although with the inadequate allocation, it will be difficult to do so. Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this is not a bill that I can support. Before I finish, let me take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill. They have all devoted many hours to creating this bill and report, and I know I speak for all the Members on our side when I say that we are grateful for the hard work that they have put into this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned baseball. I would like to remind folks that we are so committed and dedicated to our job that we are not watching the Home Run Derby right now. With the way we treat Washington, D.C., you would think we were members of the city council. But I am going to shock everyone by actually yielding 2 minutes of time to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton), who was elected by the folks from D.C.