Steve Stivers

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act, and H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act of 2016. House Resolution 687 provides a structured rule for H.R. 1206 and a closed rule for H.R. 4885. The resolution makes all germane amendments offered by Members in order. Additionally, the resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, each April, Americans send a large portion of their hard-earned income to the Internal Revenue Service. Often, they don't get a good return on their investment from the agency tasked with collecting their tax dollars. Since I joined Congress in 2011, I have heard from countless constituents struggling to understand how to comply with the complex Tax Code or with other directives from the Internal Revenue Service. Often, they turn to my office because they have no help within the agency and nobody willing to give them help. I know that these problems aren't new and they aren't issues just contained in my district. They impact all Americans who have representatives here in Congress, from both the Republican and the Democrat side. We owe our constituents improvements in customer service from all Federal agencies. In the end, everybody who works for our government is in the job of customer service to provide a service for our citizens. And, of course, this week is tax week, so it is a natural week to advance some bills aimed at restoring our American people's confidence in their public institution and improving the taxpayer experience with the Internal Revenue Service. This rule makes two bills in consideration: No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), and IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith). Under current law, the IRS is required to terminate any employee who willfully fails to file his Federal tax return or intentionally understates his tax liability. A report from last year by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS consistently reduces penalties for current employees who violate tax laws. The Treasury Inspector General reported that, of the 1,580 employees who were found to have willfully violated tax laws between 2004 and 2013, only 39 percent were terminated, resigned, or retired. The No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act would prohibit the hiring of additional IRS employees until the Secretary of the Treasury can certify that current IRS employees do not have serious delinquent tax debt. The vast majority of Federal employees pay their taxes in full and on time, but this bill would give the American people and American taxpayers the confidence in knowing that Internal Revenue Service employees are following the same laws that the American people follow and that the agency is tasked with enforcing. The other bill under consideration under this rule is the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act, which would repeal a provision of the current law that enables the Internal Revenue Service to spend user fees that are collected by the agency without any congressional approval or without an appropriation. Under this bill, these fees would be directed to the Treasury's general fund, helping to ensure the agency operates in a transparent and accountable manner. It would also help us as we are trying to close in on our deficit spending and are trying to balance our budget. The funds from these fees have historically supported taxpayer services, but in fiscal year 2015, the IRS spent only 10 percent of this money for that purpose. It diverted the other 90 percent for other purposes. In fact, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight found that the IRS is purposely diverting these funds away from taxpayer services and towards other functions, like the implementation of ObamaCare and other items. Together, these bills would take important steps toward improving the IRS' customer service to taxpayers, and it would give Americans the peace of mind that the Internal Revenue Service and its employees are following the same laws that the American people and taxpayers are required to follow. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to address a few issues with regard to the rule on the two bills. The Rules Committee did approve every amendment that was found germane. There were many amendments that were found not germane to these bills. For example, there was an amendment filed that would have declared that water district rebates are not taxable, but because neither of these bills actually amends the Tax Code and defines what is taxable and what is not, that was not germane. Of every amendment the Rules Committee actually found germane, we included it to be voted on. One of these bills has an amendment, and the other one had no germane amendments filed. The rule did include some opportunities for that. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's impassioned plea on things like infrastructure and Zika, on which we do have bipartisan agreement--the gentleman is correct--and we need to work to solve those problems. In this rule, we have two bills from the Ways and Means Committee. It is tax week. Frankly, it is a week for us to increase the transparency and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service, and that is what these two bills do. Frankly, the IRS has 100,000 employees. So by the gentleman's own math, Mr. Speaker, of 1.5 percent, that is 1,500 employees with serious delinquencies in the IRS, working to process other people's taxes. There is some work we need to do to, again, to give some belief to the American people that the employees of the Internal Revenue Service play by the same rules that the American people do and that the American taxpayers do. I think that is the purpose of the bill. As soon as the Treasury Secretary can verify that we have weeded out those with serious delinquencies from the IRS, then they could continue to hire. So there is nothing that gets in the way there. The other bill from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) makes sure that, when there are user fees that aren't appropriated, they can't be used. They have to go back to the Treasury. Frankly, Article I of our Constitution says that Congress will appropriate money for government services and government agencies. When we have unaccountable fees that are not used through the appropriations process, it creates a problem. It is a constitutional problem. It is time we stand up for the Constitution, and that is what we are doing today with Mr. Smith's bill. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. STIVERS. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers and am prepared to close.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's points on things we should be doing, and I agree and hope we can get a budget agreement in the next coming days or weeks, hopefully as soon as we can get it done. There are other pressing issues that face this country: issues of infrastructure, the Zika virus and how we are ready for it. But today we are here on two bills that can increase the transparency and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service. I believe both of those bills are well intentioned. I think they would both bring more accountability and more taxpayer confidence to that agency, and I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I can assure him we are working hard on a budget resolution. Although we cannot notify the committee of any upcoming meeting because we don't know when it will be because we don't know when the negotiations will be, I am hopeful that that will happen and we will actually end up having a budget that will be passed before the deadline. So, again, I am hopeful, but none of us can control that ourselves. The negotiations are ongoing. I would just say that these two bills and the rule don't do anything to undermine our financial stability. The first bill puts the FSOC and the OFR on budget. It requires that they have appropriations every year. You might be familiar with the appropriations clause of the U.S. Constitution: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .'' So we just want the normal constitutional checks and balances that exist in every other agency to exist here, to increase the transparency and accountability for what these agencies do. So the first bill puts FSOC and OFR on budget. It requires appropriations to be passed. It also requires periodic reports on what their goals and objectives are and how their meeting goes. That is kind of a no-brainer. Again, Senator Sherrod Brown, the Democrat minority ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, has a bill that--I'm sorry. It is the second bill. I apologize. It makes sense to do this, to put them on appropriations. The second bill is a bill that raises the limit for small financial institutions, community banks, up to $5 billion. We are talking about 400 banks. It is not the biggest banks. In fact, the biggest banks in America are almost a trillion dollars. We are talking about $5 billion in consolidated assets in banks and savings and loans. These are community-based financial institutions. There are about 400 of them. They are struggling right now. We are losing a community bank a day in this country. We need to make sure that we do everything that we can to help those community banks continue. I know that is a bipartisan effort to do that. This may not be the exact way that the other side of the aisle wants to move forward on that. I offered to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee yesterday in the Rules Committee that I would be happy to work with her on some other method. If she thinks she wants to use an activity test, if she wants to require some kind of loans to assets, if she wants to require some kind of capital in this, I would be happy to work with her because we have to help our community banks. I know that is a bipartisan feeling. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida that I know that the other side of the aisle feels the same way. We may have a tactical disagreement, but we all feel that way. So I would love to work on that. In the meantime, I hope my colleagues will support both these bills and the underlying rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for H.R. 3340, the FSOC Reform Act, and for H.R. 3791, the Raising Consolidated Assets Threshold Under Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement. House Resolution 671 provides structured rules for both bills. The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate that is equally divided between the chair and the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of one amendment to each bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. The Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is dedicated to identifying threats to the stability of the American financial system. The FSOC is supported in this mission by the Office of Financial Research, which was also created by Dodd-Frank. The OFR is armed with subpoena power to compel vast amounts of nonpublic, sensitive information from institutions across the financial system. The OFR feeds this data to the FSOC, which is empowered to designate banks, as well as nonbank institutions, as ``systemically important financial institutions,'' or SIFIs. This designation significantly increases the regulatory burdens that are faced by these institutions, and they have far-reaching effects on the entire financial system. The impact of excessive regulation trickles down to customers, resulting in higher borrowing costs that may stop Americans from realizing their dreams of homeownership, of purchasing cars, of pursuing higher education, or other goals. Despite the vast power that the FSOC and OFR have, neither organization is subject to the annual appropriations process. The OFR is funded through assessments on banks, and it pays for the FSOC through these funds. As such, the FSOC is insulated from the transparency and accountability that Congress would give to normal organizations by virtue of this self-funding mechanism. This has, effectively, shielded the FSOC from any congressional oversight. The FSOC Reform Act would, simply, fix those problems. It does not reduce the FSOC's budget or the OFR's, but it would require that they be under annual appropriations. It would also require occasional reports to Congress on their expenses, objectives, and performance measures. Congressional approval of FSOC's budget would encourage transparency with regard to FSOC's methodology for designating SIFIs. It would also make it clear what their objectives are and what they see as concerns for our financial system. I believe this bill will actually increase the transparency of the process, and it will make sure that we look out for the financial security of the American financial system. The bill also requires the FSOC to engage in a public notice and comment period before issuing any new rules and regulations. These changes will put the FSOC in line with other agencies that have to engage in public notice and comment periods before they provide new rules and regulations. I thank the sponsor of H.R. 3340, Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, for introducing this important legislation that will increase the oversight and transparency to ensure we have a safe and competitive financial market in the United States. The other measure for consideration under the rule is H.R. 3791, which is a bill sponsored by Representative Mia Love of Utah. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed legislation providing relief to community banks by increasing the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement threshold to include small bank holding companies with up to $1 billion of consolidated assets. This was in response to the small banks' difficulty in accessing capital as a result of significant changes in the regulatory landscape. This bill provides further relief by expanding the Fed's policy statement to include small bank and savings and loan holding companies with up to $5 billion of consolidated assets. This will provide needed relief for about 400 small bank and thrift holding companies. The $5 billion level matches the threshold that was offered in the last Congress by the current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, my fellow Ohioan, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. He did that in S. 798, so this should not be controversial. It is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans have been for this. Since the second quarter of 2010, around the time that the Dodd-Frank Act was passed by Congress, the community banks' share of U.S. commercial banking assets has declined at a rate that is almost double that experienced between 2006 and 2010. What is happening in our financial system is that the big are getting bigger, and the small are disappearing. That is why it is important to give regulatory relief to some smaller community banks that are caught in the middle. According to the FDIC, there were more than 18,000 banks in the 1980s as compared to just 6,400 in the first quarter of 2015, and we are currently losing community banks at a rate of one every day. Increasing the eligibility threshold to $5 billion will ensure that small bank and savings and loan holding companies will be able to issue debt and raise capital so that the community banks can continue to provide financial services to the customers they serve and increase their involvement in promoting economic growth in their local communities. It is important to note that this bill maintains the requirements that these holding companies meet regulations related to nonbanking activities, off-balance sheet activities, and publicly registered debt equity. The legislation also maintains a safeguard that allows the Federal Reserve to deny an increased debt level to any bank holding company it deems at risk of failure. Together, these bills will help ensure that powerful regulators act in a transparent manner and are accountable to Congress, and they will provide needed relief for community banks that are attempting to survive in a difficult environment. I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues, and I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I am hearing that negotiations are ongoing, and I am hopeful that we can have a budget by this Friday. There is a bit of disagreement, even inside our Conference, about how to move forward on the budget as far as the numbers. But there are a lot of discussions ongoing, and I am hopeful. I support passing a budget. I have voted for a budget since I have been here. We have passed budgets every year since I have been here. We have not passed the deadline yet for this budget. I am hopeful that we can get it done, but it is an ongoing negotiation.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no more speakers. If the gentleman from Florida wants to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Committee on Rules met and reported out a rule for H.R. 4596, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, and H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act. House Resolution 640 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797. The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of five amendments offered to H.R. 3797, as well as one amendment offered to H.R. 4596. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit for each bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the underlying legislation. The SENSE Act would modify the EPA's Cross- State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as they apply to coal refuse-to-energy power plants, while still requiring those facilities to reduce their emissions. There are only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United States, but they provide an estimated 1,200 direct and 4,000 indirect jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas. In addition to providing well-paying jobs and generating affordable energy, these power plants also address issues presented by coal refuse at no cost to the taxpayer. Coal refuse is a waste product of coal mining found near many abandoned coal mines, and they present environmental and safety hazards to communities around the country. They are a source of major fires. They pollute waters. They are eyesores that threaten economic development in the surrounding areas. In Pennsylvania alone, the cost of addressing coal refuse is estimated to be $2 billion. Coal refuse-to-energy plants use coal refuse as an energy to generate affordable and reliable electricity, and it is estimated that these facilities have removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the environment, again, at no cost to the taxpayer, and they also generate electricity, in addition to removing this coal refuse. However, only a few of the most recently built coal refuse-to-energy plants can comply with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, neither of which took the unique characteristics of these facilities into account. Because coal refuse is a waste product containing varying levels of sulfur and other regulated contaminants, the plants using it need rules that reflect this variability. The EPA refused to provide any flexibility, placing the continued operation of these coal refuse-to- energy plants in doubt. One way the SENSE Act would correct this is by making adjustments to sulfur dioxide allowances for these plants, without lowering the overall cap on emissions. Forcing these plants to close would harm our communities, it would actually hurt jobs, it would make our environmental problems worse, not better, and it would cost our taxpayers more money. The other bill under consideration is the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, and it would exempt Internet service providers with 250,000 subscribers or fewer from having to implement the FCC's enhanced transparency requirements under the 2015 Open Internet Order. Under this legislation, the exemption would remain in effect for 5 years, enabling these small Internet service providers to focus on expanding their networks and improving connectivity. This is a major issue for my congressional district, which includes a lot of rural communities, and they are in need of faster Internet. Many of the communities I serve in rural southeast and southwest Ohio do not have a 4G-like connection. I know that this is an issue that is shared by many districts across the country, many Members across the country, from both sides of the aisle. So I am hopeful that this measure will pass with strong bipartisan support. It is also important to note that the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act does not prevent consumers from accessing information, as the disclosure requirements from the 2010 Open Internet Order remain in effect. I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues. I urge support for the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the calendar, the budget, the rule, and the SENSE Act. With regard to the calendar, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the gentleman from Colorado manages his calendar. But when I go home to my district--and I won't speak for every Member of Congress--it is certainly not a vacation. I am home meeting with constituents, touring businesses, and letting my constituents talk to me so that I know what they think so that I can do my job of representing them. That is how most of the 435 Members of this Chamber treat the district workweeks. To assume that we are only working when we are in Washington, the other side of the aisle might love Washington, but I prefer to be home in my district working with people and then come back to Washington to represent them. With regard to things we have done, the gentleman talked about the Affordable Care Act, but he ignored the fact that I believe--and I may get this wrong, but I am close--seven of the changes to the Affordable Care Act were signed into law. The gentleman talked about a budget. He did finally acknowledge that, when the Democrats were in charge, Mr. Speaker, they didn't pass a budget. I have been here since 2011, when we took over the majority, and we have passed a budget every year and have passed a budget that balances. I believe we are going to pass a budget this year. I hope not to be proved wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we are working hard at it. With regard to the rule, the gentleman seems to want to have it both ways. He says that the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act should have been done on suspension, on the one hand, and then he wants an open rule that would eat up even more time, on the other hand. I am not sure which it is he wants here, but let's have it one way or the other. And then, finally, on the SENSE Act, the gentleman from Colorado ignores the fact that this bill does not change the overall emissions cap. He wants to talk about how it loosens the overall emissions cap. It does not. Let's be clear. It does not change the overall emissions cap. It provides flexibility for only 19 refuse-to-power plants across this country, and it saves money because it would cost $2 billion in Pennsylvania alone just to clean up that refuse around these coal mines. It is dangerous and it is bad for the environment. Providing this flexibility does not change our overall emissions, but it does help get those reclamation sites cleaned up cheaper, not as a cost to the taxpayer, and provides an additional benefit of jobs in energy. That sounds pretty American to me. I think it is time to end this war on coal that some people in this administration and the other side of the aisle have. That is what the SENSE Act would do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that, when the Democrats were in charge of Congress, they went on--I will use his word--vacation 4 years in a row without passing a single budget, not a single budget. We have passed a budget every year, and I believe we are going to pass a budget this year, just as a reminder to the gentleman of what happened. I think he wants to have it both ways again, and I would just like to remind him, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who listened to his constituents to deal with an issue that is very important to him. I will let him address it.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that it is not a ``minor'' bill for the 5,200 people whose jobs are on the line every day right now.

Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. STIVERS. Okay. That kind of ``miner'' I am good with. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), an esteemed member of both the Rules and Budget Committees.

Mr. STIVERS. I am prepared to close.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to urge my colleague from Colorado to use his 5 legislative days to ensure the Congressional Record does appropriately say it is a miner act--M-I-N-E- R instead of M-I-N-O-R act--where he said it was a minor act. I think that is a very important distinction, and it is a distinction with a difference. He made the statement earlier, so I hope he does use his 5 legislative days to correct the Record on that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.