Providing for Consideration of H.R. Ban on IRS Bonuses Until Secretary of the Treasury Develops Comprehensive Customer Service Strategy, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 688

Resolved, That 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. 4890) to impose a ban on the payment of bonuses to employees of the Internal Revenue Service until the Secretary of the Treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer service strategy. 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 Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five- minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-49. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3724) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service from rehiring any employee of the Internal Revenue Service who was involuntarily separated from service for misconduct. 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 114-48 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4890, Ban on IRS Bonuses Until Secretary of the Treasury Develops Comprehensive Customer Service Strategy, and H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act of 2015.

For each of these two bills, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also provides a motion to recommit. H.R. 4890 will be considered under a structured rule, while H.R. 3724 will be considered under a closed rule, as none of the amendments submitted were germane.

Yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony from members of the Committee on Ways and Means. Both pieces of legislation covered by this rule were considered and marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means and enjoyed discussion before that committee. H.R. 3724 passed the committee by a voice vote, and H.R. 4890 was also passed and reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

It is fitting that the House consider these bills to rein in and reform the IRS this week, as Americans across the country have had to face tax day yesterday.

Our Tax Code is overly burdensome and complex and penalizes hardworking Americans. Tax dollars belong in the hands of Americans who have earned them, not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

The bills before us today help to rein in the IRS, protect taxpayer money, and hold the IRS accountable.

H.R. 4890, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), prohibits the IRS from paying bonuses to employees until it creates and submits to Congress a comprehensive strategy to improve customer service.

The IRS' mission is to ``provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities. . .''

Unfortunately, the IRS has fallen woefully short of this stated goal. The IRS does not have a comprehensive customer service strategy to ensure that it is providing effective and efficient service. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, only 38 percent of the callers wanting to speak to an IRS representative were able to reach one. This is unacceptable.

No one likes to pay their taxes, but the IRS has a responsibility to provide service and assistance to those who are trying to meet the burdensome obligation.

H.R. 4890 makes clear that until the IRS meets its obligation to the taxpayers who fund the agency, IRS employees will not get bonuses. To me, this is common sense. We should not be rewarding agency employees when they are not meeting their mission. H.R. 4890 helps hardworking Americans by ensuring that the IRS implements a comprehensive customer service strategy.

H.R. 3724, introduced by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), prohibits the IRS Commissioner from rehiring any employee who was let go from the agency for misconduct.

Now, just think about that one for a second. We are in a place with the IRS where we have to prohibit by law that agency from rehiring people who they have fired for misconduct. No wonder people shake their heads.

I can tell you this--a businessman or woman in Georgia would think twice about hiring someone they had to fire, but the IRS, which has access to sensitive taxpayer data, is repeatedly doing just that, according to the agency's own inspector general.

In fact, according to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS rehired 141 former employees who had been removed from service for issues ranging from falsification of official forms to abuse of IRS leave and property policies.

Americans deserve better. They deserve to know their tax and personal information is protected and that those handling it are held accountable. It is past time we hold the IRS to a higher standard.

I would like to thank Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady, Congresswoman Noem, Congressman Meehan, and their staffs for their work in bringing together these important reforms.

I believe there is probably going to be debate on these bills this week on the House floor. But also, there are certain times when you just understand the bills are, as I say from my part of the world, just common sense, and we just need to get to them.

It is amazing that we actually have to tell the IRS to not rehire people that they fired for misconduct. That is just an amazing idea. There are a lot of things that need to go on over there, the least of which is to give them more money which they have shown, repeatedly over the past few years, that they use to target groups that they don't like.

So that is not the reason that they are problematic. There are other issues there that need to be dealt with.

As I said before, our tax system is out of control. Americans deserve to keep their hard-earned dollars. While I would like to dismantle the IRS--I am more of a fair tax proponent--while it exists, we must rein it in and hold it accountable.

This rule provides for consideration of legislation that will protect taxpayers. It takes important steps toward ensuring that the IRS is not abusing taxpayer dollars. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 4890 and H.R. 3724.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 688 Offered By Mr. McGovern

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

Sec. 3. 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. 3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety, transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface transportation programs, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 3064. ____ 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