José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. With all due to respect to my colleague, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the bill was being written, I recall going to the sponsors of this bill both here and the Senate and saying make sure that this agency is under appropriation supervision, under supervision of the House of Representatives. And I still believe that part of the fiscal crisis which we are still living under was the lack of supervision over the SEC and over the actions of Wall Street. So I am strongly in support of having them answer to us and at least have input from the people's House--from the people's Representatives--to ask them to come before us and tell us what they are doing. It sounds great for many Members to have an agency be on its own and do the right thing. But past history shows us that when we did that, when we did not supervise, and when we did not have oversight, it did just the opposite. I am from New York, Mr. Chairman, and I tell you that Wall Street went berserk because we did not pay attention, we did not do oversight, and we did not hold them accountable. So I would hope that we defeat this amendment with all due respect to my colleague.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is completely irresponsible and unnecessary. My colleague may be angry at the Internal Revenue Service, but defunding the very entities that would supply the information he is requesting is not going to get him that information any faster. These offices actually have nothing to do with setting a policy with regard to email retention. This amendment is simply another attempt to find a conspiracy where the Republican Party has been unable to find one previously. At this point, the IRS has spent at least $14 million providing hundreds of thousands of pages of information to the committees of jurisdiction here, and, instead of providing them with more money to provide more information, the majority wants to cut the IRS further. This is not a well-thought-out or responsible amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it because it does exactly the opposite of what my colleague claims it would do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, my early math tells me that, if the amendments that we just passed stick in conference, we have already cut $1.154 billion from enforcement. Those are the folks who are going to collect taxes from people who don't want to pay taxes. I continue to make my comments--again, sounding repetitious--that there has to be a moment when this stops, when we realize that, yes, there are issues that have to be dealt with at the IRS. There have always been issues that have had to be dealt with at the IRS, but the idea of zeroing out this account and zeroing out the enforcement account just does not make any sense. I would hope that we would just pay attention to that and pay attention to the fact that, while we may have differences with an agency, we have never, ever in the years that I have been here seen anyone, any party or any group, go after a particular agency the way we have gone after the IRS, not only tonight, but in the last few months. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman says that the IRS has too much money. I haven't done the math totally, but I think if we were to accept every amendment that will come up in the next couple of days against the IRS, we would not only reach zero on the budget for the IRS, we would probably go under and create a crisis that we don't know how to handle. The enforcement account at IRS has already been cut by $72 million above last year and is more than $421 million below the President's request. The taxpayer service account is already funded above last year's level. Given the lack of funding for the IRS, there should be no need to plus-up an account that has actually increased while the overall funding for the agency has decreased. That is just a simple statement to understand. I understand the need to continue to attack the IRS under this belief that they went after just a certain kind of organization. They went after no one. They asked questions of both sides, both conservative groups and liberal groups. I guess we are not going to hear the end of it for the next couple of days. It might be 3 days of bashing the IRS. So I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, for a minute there, I was almost convinced that they are not after the IRS, but they are even willing to give money to an agency they traditionally do not support just to get at the IRS. The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats and helping those who are attempting to obey the law. The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers. This IRS needs more funding, not less. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is funded $5 million below last year's level, and we are supportive of remedying that in conference. However, we simply cannot support this offset. It is my understanding that the sponsor of this amendment would like the money to be used for the CPSC to prescribe new or revised third- party testing regulations. Hearing a Republican offering an amendment to fund regulations makes it very tempting for me to support this amendment, since it is such a rare event. It is also ironic in that there is another possible Republican amendment preventing the CPSC from even proceeding to review comments submitted by the public on another regulation. These dueling amendments point out the obvious problem when Congress doesn't allow the proper process to proceed and instead cherry-picks where and when it wants to interfere. This is clearly just another attack on the IRS, and I oppose the amendment and hope all my colleagues will also do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, departmental salaries and expenses of Treasury have already been cut by $17.4 million this year as compared to last year. That includes the departmental offices account. That means that this portion of the bill is 4.4 percent below what the administration requested. Mr. Chairman, there is no need to cut it any further. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a second in closing to say that Mr. Cohen's comments were very well taken. I think the mistake we make here is that we continue to add riders to this bill, and a lot of riders in the past had to do with Washington, D.C. Now, as I have said on many occasions, for me, this is more than a legislative issue. It is a personal issue. I was born in Puerto Rico, raised in New York, and at times I haven't been pleased with the relationship and the way Puerto Rico has been treated by this Federal Government. So I would just hope that, as we go along, people will continue, continue, continue to realize that the District of Columbia has its own folks, its own elected officials at the local level, and they should be able to conduct their own business. Lastly, we do this because this country that we love so well and this country that I love so well and that we serve on a daily basis should not treat any segment of its citizens in a different way than it treats other people. I realize that we have a constitutional responsibility, but we don't have to misuse that responsibility. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Cybersecurity is of critical importance to our national security and our economic security. I look forward to working with you as we move to conference to ensure that the SEC can effectively address cybersecurity issues. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island to close.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a colloquy.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats and helping those who are attempting to obey the law. The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers. This underfunding will force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff, which means that less than 50 percent of taxpayers who reach out to the IRS for assistance on the telephone help line will be able to get it, while waiting times for those who do get answers will rise to 35 minutes or longer. As many as 24 million taxpayers would be unable to reach the IRS for assistance. That is unacceptable. The cuts in this bill will also result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to what could have been collected at the requested level, thereby increasing the deficit by that amount. Take as contrast funding at more than $1.6 million above last year's level and over half a million more than was requested. I am not sure what they have done to deserve an increase that they didn't even ask for. During our hearing, it became clear that the IG didn't fairly represent the findings of its own investigator. Its lead investigator reviewed 5,500 emails and concluded that there was no indication of political motivation, yet the IG failed to mention that until months later after his order was released, and you will certainly not hear Republicans mention it now. So I am not sure what they are trying to reward, but it certainly is not good work. I oppose this amendment and urge that everyone else do so as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.