Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preventing Irs Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 778 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 778

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5053) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from requiring that the identity of contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual returns. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-58 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Sec. 3. Section 10002 of H.R. 5293 shall be considered to be a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) of House Resolution 5.

Sec. 4. (a) During consideration of H.R. 5293, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not so designated, or vice versa. (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an amendment between the Houses.

Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 5293, section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 shall not apply.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for H.R. 5053, the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, and H.R. 5293, the fiscal year 2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. House Resolution 778 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5053 and a general debate rule for H.R. 5293.

The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means for H.R. 5053, and 1 hour equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for H.R. 5293. The resolution also provides for a motion to recommit for H.R. 5053, with or without instructions. In addition, the rule includes provisions related to budget enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. Under current law, 501(c) nonprofit organizations are required to collect personally identifiable information on what are known as substantial donors and report that information to the IRS. Substantial donors are defined as individuals who donate $5,000 or more to an organization during the course of the calendar year.

Normally, that information is reported by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. However, the IRS expanded the substantial reporting requirement to all tax-exempt organizations through the use of Form 990.

The security of personal information of American taxpayers is vital. The IRS doesn't normally make this information public, yet there have been instances involving IRS employees improperly accessing this information and even releasing it to the public. One particular instance saw the National Organization for Marriage have its donor list information publicly disclosed in 2012.

In California, Mr. Speaker, the State attorney general wanted to require that the information reported is made public, which prompted a lawsuit. In April of this year, the U.S. district court ruled that requiring an organization to disclose its donor list is unconstitutional.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may make the accusation that this bill will allow for a flood of foreign money into our elections. Mr. Speaker, this argument rings hollow for two reasons.

First, we have laws on the books to specifically protect against that very thing. It is called the Bank Secrecy Act. Federal regulations under that law require every bank to file information with the Treasury Department and report any suspicious transactions relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation. H.R. 5053 does not change the Bank Secrecy Act or those regulations in any way.

Second, and more importantly, the IRS doesn't even have authority to share this information with the two organizations that enforce campaign finance laws: the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice. So only in limited circumstances in which there is already evidence of a criminal act can these tax privacy laws allow the IRS to share this information. The problem is the IRS doesn't share this information anyway. It is up to the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department to enforce those laws, and they do so already.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the district court ruling because American citizens have a right under the First Amendment to free speech and free association. The IRS has demonstrated in the past that many of their employees do not adequately protect personally identifiable information of American taxpayers. Individuals should not be forced to disclose how much of their hard-earned money and to whom they donate to charity.

Even the Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service has publicly stated that the IRS is considering removing Schedule B themselves. Let me repeat that. This is a democratically appointed Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service. This individual said that the IRS is considering removing Schedule B themselves. That is exactly what this bill does. That makes this a bipartisan bill.

I hope my colleagues will support this measure. It makes sense.

The second underlying bill is the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. The legislation includes $517 billion for our national security, a slight increase over last year's enacted level.

The legislation includes $58.6 billion in funding to fight the global war on terror, which includes funding for our forces in the field as well as support to key allies to resist aggression from nation-states and terrorist groups.

The bill includes a small 2.1 percent pay raise for our military, which is more than the 1.6 percent requested by the administration, and it includes $34 billion for the Defense Health Program to provide care for our troops, their families, and retired members of the armed services.

Important investments in cancer research, traumatic brain injury, psychological health research, and suicide prevention outreach as well as sexual assault prevention programs are also included in this bill.

A well-equipped, well-trained, effective military providing for the common defense of our Nation is our most basic constitutional responsibility. This bill helps preserve our military as the most capable and superior armed force in the world, while providing funds necessary to fight America's enemies abroad.

While there will be amendments offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the days to come, Mr. Speaker, the rule here today is only for general debate of the overall bill. I look forward to continuing the debate on these policies with our House colleagues, and I urge support for the underlying bills.

Really quickly, on the IRS bill, it is already the interpretation of the Federal district court that these contributions should not be made public; that donor lists should not be made public because people have a right to free association and free speech. These are constitutional rights. So to argue that this information that is not allowed to be made public is somehow going to lead to a flood of foreign money, is nonsense.

Also, again, I will reiterate that the Bank Secrecy Act is in place to make sure that that does not happen. So I just wanted to quickly dispel with that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. The gentleman was a colonel in the United States Army, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a great American.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, 1 yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Massachusetts that I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

The gentleman makes an impassioned argument, but today's rule is about two bills. It is about a bill that will prevent IRS abuse and make sure that our citizens have a right to free speech and free association that they are guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I thought it was really interesting that he read a portion of The New York Times editorial that is very clear to say that reform groups claim that this bill does X. The editorial writer did not make the claim that it happened or that it will happen; he made the claim that reform groups claim it will happen because the editorial writer can't verify the validity of it, and it is simply not true.

The Bank Secrecy Act will make sure, as it does today, that foreign money is kept out of our elections. The Federal Election Commission, which is responsible for enforcing our election laws, will continue to enforce our election laws.

In fact, no one knows what Schedule B is used for. Today it has no real purpose. The IRS' Director of Exempt Organizations has publicly stated that they are considering doing away with Schedule B themselves. That is all the first bill does.

The second bill we are talking about is providing for funding for our troops. It is the DOD authorization for funding for 2017. The gentleman talks about some other issues, but if we don't fund it, we are the ones doing nothing. If we don't fund our troops, we are the ones doing nothing. We have an obligation to fund our troops to provide for the common defense. We need to make sure we do that. That is what this bill does, and I want to make sure we do that.

I do want to make a quick comment on process because the gentleman is apparently outraged about process. In this session of Congress, the 114th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the majority has allowed 1,269 amendments on the House floor in this Congress. That is as of May--halfway through this year. In the 113th Congress, the majority allowed 1,545 amendments to be considered. When the gentleman from Massachusetts was in the majority in the 111th Congress, his party only allowed 778 amendments during the entire 111th Congress. The gentleman's claims ring a little hollow. Maybe where you stand depends on where you sit.

I will say that these are important bills. The rule will make sure that we can fully fund our national defense and make sure that we look out for the constitutional rights of our citizens. Those are two very important things. I don't argue with the gentleman that there may be other things we want to talk about, but those things are important, and that is what today is about, that is what this 1 hour of debate is about, and that is what the 2 hours the rule provides are about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source