Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3056, Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3056, TAX COLLECTION RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - October 10, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is anything even left to say about the depths to which the House has sunk under the ``broken promise'' Democrat majority. Today, once again, the American people are being forced to endure the results of yet another evening spent in the ``broken promise'' Democrat Rules Committee, with nothing to show for it except for yet another closed rule, which was referred to today as a ``traditionally closed rule'' on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, which denies the minority even with a basic substitute amendment in this process, and to the fiscally irresponsible underlying legislation.
I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that, once again, as I have been forced to report on multiple occasions over the course of this year, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor which stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Today, that expense is on the American taxpayer, who is being targeted on behalf of big public sector union bosses to the tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact.
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a number of the myths that will be discussed surrounding this legislation and provide my colleagues and the American people who are tuning in on C-SPAN with some of the facts about the real effect of this special interest legislation and what it would mean to the taxpayer.
In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these unpaid taxes exist. That means that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover taxes not being paid by those who should legally be paying their taxes.
This new program, which began as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in about $2.2 billion in its first 10 years. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every single new dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that would have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government into the future.
The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, has been hugely successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of unpaid taxes. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procurement accuracy, as well a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints with the IRS, none which have ever been validated.
Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who do play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenue that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other new, big-spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, supposedly to protect the dues of the big government union bosses.
They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already use these same contract services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private collectors, and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could learn from their best practices as it works to resolve long-standing problems with its debt collection activities.''
Opponents have also incorrectly claimed that private debt collectors do not follow the same rules as IRS collectors. Well, this one is partially true, because these private collection agencies are subject to both Federal and State laws that are collectively more restrictive than the laws that Federal employees must follow. Private collectors follow the same privacy protections, undergo the same background checks and are subject to the same penalties if they violate any of these laws.
Opponents have also claimed that allowing for private debt collection would cost untold union jobs, a statement which is also based in an alternate reality. The private collection agencies working in this program did not and do not replace a single IRS worker.
As of this past July, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have received otherwise, of which only about one in eight went to pay for these otherwise nonexistent services. In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly effective private contracting. Instead, they will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise and resources on high priority, more complex cases.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to understand all of the facts regarding this legislation before they are influenced by the scare tactics of a few Members who are determined to kill this highly-effective program that has already proven to be cost-effective in closing the ``tax gap'' of unpaid, hard-to collect taxes.
I wish I could say they would have plenty of time to learn all the facts surrounding this legislation that is being rushed to the floor today under a completely closed process. Unfortunately, last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House of Representatives,'' the majority Rules Committee Democrats voted three times along party lines to prevent any amendment authored by a Republican from being considered today. Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest ranking Democrats in the House to run the most ``transparent, open and honest'' House in history, this Democrat majority once again has provided the House with something which is a rule that is none of the above, which is the historical tradition. Instead, we have what is referred to as a closed rule. I wish I could say I am surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new ``broken promise'' Democrat majority.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this ill-conceived and costly legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for
taxpayers by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear arguments from my good friends about how this just won't work. But for 10 years it has worked very well, with a 99 percent accuracy, in providing billions of dollars to the taxpayer.
The bottom line is that Treasury simply focuses their activities on major accounts, and the others on smaller accounts, which is who have been handling these accounts and been very good at it, which is what we are asking to continue today. What is happening is that we found out the unions simply don't like that. They don't like somebody else perhaps getting something that they in fact never wanted to work on themselves.
So we are trying to say to the American people today, don't take away this stream of revenue. Don't take away this opportunity. Because the private sector is working on these accounts. They are not given any advantage. The
people who really end up winning is not only the Treasury Department, but, more specifically, the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this is a blatant attempt to mislead Members or not, but the gentleman, Mr. English, his bill is compliant with PAYGO rules. And to suggest on this floor that the Republican Party presented the bill, the amendment----
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. I wasn't referring to Mr. English's bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Which one were you referencing, sir?
Mr. CARDOZA. I was referring to Mr. McCrery's substitute.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, and I will continue this dialogue, you know that we asked to have made in order one that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules, and you and your colleagues turned that down. You specifically stated: We want an amendment that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules; will you please give it to us. And we were turned down by the Rules Committee. I would engage the gentleman on that issue.
It was my amendment that I made, and I know how the gentleman voted, along with all of his colleagues. And to stand up on this floor and to say, Well, we would if they would abide by the rules, but they have to abide by the rules, is a blatant, blatant miscalculation and I think untrue and insincere. When we asked for that in the Rules Committee, we were turned down.
When we said, Give us an amendment we will make sure that the Parliamentarian and others say is compliant, we were turned down.
The gentleman, Mr. English, and I am getting ready to allow him to speak on this floor, he is in compliance with PAYGO rules. So there was not an opportunity that was given by the Rules Committee to allow us to do that. And then you stand up and say, Well, if Republicans played by the same rules as we do, then they would find them in order, that is not true.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the co-chairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, the distinguished gentleman who has an amendment that would be compliant, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, let's go to the heart of this.
$30 million worth of uncollected taxes that, by the IRS's own admission, never would have been collected because they were accounts they did not want to or were not working, which are the only accounts that ever go to private debt collectors, who as private collectors receive a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism, and less than 1 percent of those accounts have any sort of complaints that are filed with the IRS, and none which have been validated. That's the substance of the case. That's why we oppose this bill and this rule. It makes no sense unless you're simply trying to do what union bosses ask you to do, which is evidently what this bill is doing.
I would also like to point out that what's very interesting is that this bill is supported by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and has a whopping nine cosponsors, a whopping nine cosponsors, and we're bringing that to the floor of the House today. Utterly amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this time the Statement of Administration Policy by the President, which this White House says that they will veto.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3056--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3056. The bill is not consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 3056 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Administration strongly opposes the provisions of the bill that would repeal the current statutory authorization for the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, private debt collection program. Terminating this program would result in a loss of significant revenue over the next 10 years. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the Government and that are otherwise not likely to be collected by the IRS. It is a disservice to all taxpayers who properly pay their taxes to terminate this program that is efficiently recovering a portion of the extra burden they shoulder from the ``tax gap'' caused by those who do not pay their taxes. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently reported that the IRS has made ``major progress'' in addressing critical success factors for the private debt collection program, including ensuring that both taxpayer rights and the security of taxpayer information are protected.
The Administration also has concerns with the provision of the bill that would impose additional tax rules on individuals relinquishing U.S. citizenship or terminating long-term residency. The Administration strongly supports efforts to ensure that individuals renouncing their U.S. citizenship pay their fair share of U.S. taxes. The bill's ``mark-to-market'' approach to valuation of expatriates' property for taxation purposes, however, overrides existing tax treaties and raises concerns about tax complexity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here on the floor. We talked about from the Republican perspective, we're trying to follow the rules, not only of the House, but also the statements that have been made by our new Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, who said she would have the most honest, open and ethical House in history and that that would also extend to processes of amendments.
We are here on the floor of the House saying today, that's not happening, has not happened all year, and I would predict to say today probably is not about to happen. Still on the Web site for the Speaker it says this. The American people are waiting for this promise to be made.
Today, we are debating a rule and a bill that would say to the American taxpayer that the IRS and their ability to collect taxes on behalf of the American people is going to be changed, changed from accounts that the IRS has no reasonable reason to believe that they will be chasing after or trying to collect. And that's why in the first place we said from doing audits, you've got all these accounts, please pass them to someone who will do it on behalf of the taxpayer. Because if you're not trying to collect these bills, it means that people will never pay.
The result has been over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes that never would have been collected, not by the IRS, and they're done by someone, these private collection agencies, that receive a 98 percent rating by the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism and less than a 1 percent complaint rate of which not one has turned out to be validated.
Mr. Speaker, this is an assault on not just the taxpayer. This is an assault on really good and effective and proper government, where the IRS utilizes best practice. They're utilized by over 40 State governments today to have help in collecting money that is owed not just to the government but to the taxpayers of this Nation. And today, despite the success, overwhelming success, that is occurring, the Democrat majority, with nine cosponsors plus the chairman, is interested in taking away this opportunity for the taxpayers, I will assume, because the taxpayer union of the Treasury Department does not like this happening.
Mr. Speaker, we need to have best practices. The President is right. He will veto this bill. This is a valiant effort by this Democrat majority to pay back AFL-CIO and the labor unions for their support, but it is not in the best interests of not only the taxpayer but of good and proper government.
The Republican Party is here on the floor of the House today saying that what has happened with best practices that is happening today should continue. We should have these private services that work in concert with the IRS. We should continue to give the IRS and those particular departments that do go after this money to receive directly more money that is collected that would help them hire more tax collectors, but we should not stop this process dead in its tracks because not only is it successful, but it is working as a best practice would for other people to see how important a public/private partnership is.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material to appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source