that if the american people were shown a real facts on, they would not support as much. as far as background checks, they don't seem to be very controversial. background checks would have had no effect on newtown, connecticut. when the president has these poor families around, he's being disingenuous, because it not have stopped that incident. going after the assault weapons, the same thing. their proposal would not have stopped that. all those victims would still be victims of the matter what gun legislation they are producing. republicans are failing to address why people need assault weapons. the reason they need them is the same reason all law-enforcement professional need them. they have determined it is the necessary gun to defend themselves and to prosecute criminals. we have the same type of individuals that law enforcement has.

if the criminals come to our house, we need to defend ourselves. handguns will not defeat body armor. only an assault weapon bill. when they say we don't need them, they are dead wrong. host: senator pat toomey, a republican of your state, is one of the two brokers of the background check deal. what do you think about the politics? caller: i was really opposed to it initially. i spoke to the senator's staff about it. most of the proposals in it are reasonable. suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be talken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1162 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1162, a bill to amenled title 31, united states code, to make improvements in the government accountability office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, as you know, the government accountability office is a legislative branch agency. that investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. often called the congressional watchdog, the g.a.o. investigates instances of waste, fraud and abuse in the

federal government. my committee has direct jurisdiction over the g.a.o. congress must have current information on how federal programs are performing in order to both legislate and conduct meaningful oversight. the improvement act will enhance the g.a.o.'s ability to serve congress primarily by ensuring agencies have access to key data where housed in the expect -- warehoused in the executive branch. this bill ensures the g.a.o. has access to the national directory of new hires, which is used to verify eligibility . r federal programs to detect or prevent fraud, and to identify improper payments. h.r. 1162 will ensure the g.a.o. has the ability to obtain agency records and to administer oaths to witnesses when auditing accounts and investigating fraud. it will allow the controller

general to seek judicial remedy tone force joo's right to information -- to enforce joo's right to information -- to enforce g.a.o. rights. the committee is confident the g.a.o., a nonpartisan portion of the legislative branch, will continue to vigorously maintain confidential, regarding information it on -- confidentialy, regarding information it obtains. i want to note that the language in this bill was included in previous versions of the data act that was approved unanimously by the house in the last congress. i want to additionally thank the ranking member, mr. cummings, for his partnership in this issue. no matter which of us holds the gavel, we together know that the information we base our decisions on, the information critical to the american people , has a balance of time that we must realize must be sooner not

later. the ranking member and i absolutely support this bill in its current form because we know that fresh information is critically important if we're to make our decisions timely. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i first want to just dedicate a oment to our fellow citizens up in boston who are going through some very traumatic times right now. the fact that bombs have gone off in boston, that sadly there have been fatalities and sadly many people have been injured. our prayers go out to our fellow citizens, to the first responders and we pray that

matter will be resolved in a way that brings anybody who brings harm to anyone to justice. and with that, mr. speaker, i want to -- on the subject of the bill, i want to thank you and i rise today in strong support of this bill and i yield myself such time as i may consume and i want to society myself with the words of -- associate myself with the words of our chairman, mr. issa. this is truly indeed a bipartisan bill. and as to the content of the bill, g.a.o. assists congress in identifying waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs and recommending ways to make government work better. because of its vital role, g.a.o. needs unfettered access to federal agencies. efforts by executive branch officials to withhold nformation from g.a.o. unfortunately impedes congress'

ability to legislate effectively. and i will say it over and over again as long as i live, we need to be effective and efficient in everything we do on this earth. and this is an effort to make sure that we can be just that, more effective and efficient. the government accountability office improvement act will increase the effectiveness of g.a.o. by clarifying and strengthening its authority in several critical areas, including access to records. the g.a.o. improvement act addresses a federal court decision in walker vs. chaney that limited g.a.o.'s ability to question agency access determinations in court. the bill provides the comptroller general with expressed authority from congress to pursue litigation if the controller general determines that the performance of her official duties is

harmed when an agency improperly withholds information. the bill also clarifies g.a.o.'s access to information in other key areas by confirming g.a.o.'s right to make and retain copies of records, authorizing g.a.o. to administer oaths in certain circumstances, and specifically granting g.a.o. access to certain information. finally, mr. speaker, the bill creates a reporting mechanism so that congress will be more fully informed when agencies do not cooperate with g.a.o. i introduced similar legislation to this bill in the last congress which passed the house as a provision of h.r. data act, to which it

was added, at my request. and again i want to thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation in getting the bill to the floor and with that, mr. speaker, i urge the embers to pass h.r. 1162 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. issa. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i now will ask to place in the record a letter from the chairman of the ways and means committee supporting the bill, but recognizing that the primary jurisdiction over this database belongs to the committee on ways and means and we're responding in the affirmative for that. before i recognize -- thank you. before i recognize the next speaker, i would ask that the house take a moment to recognize the loss of life in boston and -- as this tragedy continues to unfold.

thank you, mr. speaker. i will now recognize that we have no more speakers and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to mr. cartwright of pennsylvania two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is ecognized for two minutes. mr. cartwright: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 249, the federal employee -- excuse me. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: we have no further speakers at this time and would yield back. or -- we're prepared to close unless there are further speakers on the other side.

mr. cummings: we have no further speakers on this bill. mr. issa: then i think we both ask favorable consideration and yield back. mr. cummings: i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemen yield back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1162 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having esponded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: on this vote i request for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1246. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 23, h.r. 1246, a bill to amend the district of columbia home rule act, providing that the district of columbia treasurer were one of the department -- or one of the deputy chief financial officers of the office of the chief financial officer of the district of columbia may perform the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity if there is a vacancy in the office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentlewoman from

the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, as chairman on the committee with oversight and responsibility over the district of columbia, from time to time it comes to our attention that the home rule act and other legislation that has governed the federal city needs to be updated. in this case, because of the work of delegate holmes norton, we became aware of a potentially dangerous flaw within existing law. on february 1, dr. ghandi, the longstanding district of columbia's chief financial officer, announced that he will

retire on june 1. subsequently, ms. norton and the mayor both began to realize that if they did not have a full-time and confirmed replacement by june 1, they would be without the authority to write checks. they would be without a requirement that makes the city physically work. this has been a flaw for a very long time. no city, no state, no government should have a single individual critical to the disbursement and consideration of their just debts but that is in fact the way the law was written. this bill very narrowly but essentially and, if i will say, long overdue, recognizes that there has to be a succession plan, a capability to fill vacancies. h.r. 1246 parallels the federal vacancy reform act and simply reaffirms a logical sequence of who may be considered to fill

this vacancy for whatever period of time would be reasonable. under the legislation we recognize that we also mirror the federal statute for what -- what is in fact a temporary filling. i want to just close by thanking delegate holmes norton . she brought this to us realizing how critical it could be and was the first to realize that if dr. ghandi had simply had a car accident and become infirmed, the same exact situation could have happened and could have been a crisis during an august recess or some other period of time in which congress would have found itself unable to resolve it in a timely fashion. so i want to thank her for recognizing the potential before all others and perhaps that's the best justification for having a delegate represent the district of columbia as she has so well and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. .

ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman, chairman issa, and ranking member cummings for so quickly understanding the importance of bringing this bill to the floor and marking it up expeditiously. we brought it to the chairman and the ranking member after they had completed the list for the markup, and they immediately recognized how important this bill was. may i just take this moment to thank chairman issa for his continued partnership on legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the district of columbia, including budget autonomy, which got a boost this week when president obama included a legislative provision. that's the first president that's ever done that. to grant d.c. budget autonomy in his fiscal year 2014 budget. this legislation is a whole lot

straight -- more straightforward, but highly technical and could have been overlooked. the district of columbia chief financial officer vacancy act is, however, an important example of chairman issa's commitment to assist the district of columbia in combrotching and safeguarding its vital operations -- improving and safeguarding its vital operations. based on the federal vacancy reform act of 1998 is intended to clarify the authority of the mayor of the district of columbia to fulfill the vacancy on the chief financial officer on an interim basis. under the bill, if there is a vacancy in the office of the c.f.o. because the c.f.o. has died or resigned or otherwise becomes unable to perform the functions and duties of the office -- excuse me -- under this bill pat earned after federal legislation, the d.c. treasurer becomes the acting c.f.o. unless the mayor appoints a deputy c.f.o..

in either case there may not be an acting c.f.o. for more than 210 days. the c.f.o., an independent official created by congress, oversees all of the finances of the district of columbia. the city may not obligate or extend funds without the c.f.o. congress created uncertainty after the mayor's authority to appoint an interim c.f.o. in the fiscal 2001 district of columbia appropriation act which added a 30-day congressional review and comment period before the appointment of a c.f.o. takes effect. and when we passed the original bill, there was not that comment period and there is where we got the technical flaw. congress retained this quonl review and comment period -- congressional review and comment reperd in the rewrite of the 2005 omnibus authorization act. in the event of a vacancy, this

reviewing comment period could leave the district without a c.f.o. with at least 30 days. it could be argued that the mayor has the general authority to execute the laws and administrator the affairs of the district of columbia, which may give the mayor impolicity authority to fulfill a vacancy in the office of c.f.o. in an interim basis, this office, after all, was created by the federal government. it would not be prudent to leave doubt about the mayor's authority as to the only officer who can authorize spending for the district of columbia. the bill removes any possible doubt. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would like to join with my

colleague, ms. norton, in her comments just a moment ago. the president recognizing that now is the time to work on a bipartisan basis on budget autonomy for the district, recognizing that every year contracts have to be let for teachers that will go to work in late august and early september but in fact they often do not know what their budget's going to be on october 1. so this is another area which ms. norton and i find ourselves prepared to bring legislation in a timely fashion that deals with the need to make sure that the taxes raised within the district of columbia by the people of the district of columbia can in fact be put toward those important essential services that are paid for by the taxes of the people of the district. so although that isn't directly related to today's legislation, i think it's critical that we

as the ultimate stewards of the federal city recognize that we cannot run the federal city, we cannot budget the federal city, we cannot in fact do what mayors and city councils do as well as they do. so although i share with my colleagues that it is the responsibility the constitution gives us, i join with my colleague, ms. norton, in saying that in fact we will live up to the president's request in the budget, we will offer legislation from our committee in the next month or so so that long before the passage of appropriations we once again have a piece of legislation before this committee that deals with a long overdue reform to the home rule act. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: may i thank the chairman for his remarks concerning budget autonomy. you know, many in the district see budget autonomy as simply a

right because it's a local budget and of course the congress had nothing to do with raising the funds in that budget. the chairman had a hearing ere he listened to the ramifications and effects of bringing a local budget to a body that has even in the best f times is surrounded by a great uncertainty. the rd the experience of penalties that the district incurs in its rating, in its bond rating which would otherwise be perhaps the best in the country because it has such a large reserve, unusual in these times, and he heard bout our budget year which begins with the congressional

budget year where every other jurisdiction in the united states begins its budget year in july because they are timed to their own children in the opening of school and he heard about the difficulties of running a large city government and of the shutdown preparations we've had to make because our budget is so tied to the budget of the district of columbia. the district of columbia did ot lobby the chairman. he's an astute observer on not only the district of columbia but how money is managed and he himself came forward with the notion that the local budget ought to be with local residents. it seems to be a particularly thoughtful proposal when you consider that congress and in the bills and the various

provisions that have an offer would still have the final authority over the budget. so here we have a situation where congress would lose nothing but the district would gain almost everything. to yield 'm pleased to the ranking member who's been helpful to me at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to first of all say to ms. norton, i want to thank you for your vigilance and i want to thank you for standing on the case no matter how history will be written about the district of columbia, it must be said that you have over and over again stood up for the district, trying to make sure it has the autonomy it deserves and it's simply right. we thank you very much for those efforts. as ranking member of the house

oversight and government reform committee, i rise in strong support of there are important legislation. the district of columbia chief financial officer vacancy act would give the d.c. mayor the expressed authority to appoint an acting chief financial officer in the event of a vacancy in the office of the chief financial officer. an independent office created by congress and responsible for the financial operations of the district. while the mayor is the official responsible for executing the laws of the district, may have implied authority under the current law to appoint an acting chief financial officer, the bill erases any doubt for the mayor to appoint an acting c.f.o. that's very, very important. the district's strong credit rating is attribute uble in no small part to the office of the chief financial officer and there needs to be no confusion for them to expend funds.

finally, i agree with the gentlelady with her comments with regard to her comments with regard to the chairman of the committee. he has shown strong support for this autonomy, and she's talking about the autonomy that the residents of the district of columbia richly deserve and hopefully we'll be able to move this ball forward so that when we look at the end of our tenure, if not before, we will be able to say we were able to accomplish it and get it done. so i applaud the chairman for his foresight. i definitely fought him in his efforts with regard to that issue and to this issue, by the way, because this issue here we're dealing with today clearly we had a situation where there was a hole that needed to be closed so there would be clarity. and through your foresight, ms. norton and a certainly the foresight of the d.c.

government, we now are able to close that so there is no ambiguity whatsoever. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and with that i yield back and thank the gentlelady for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, but i do want to thank the ranking member for his very vigorous and important remarks on this bill and for his great assistance to me on this bill and on budget autonomy and many others. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i urge all members to join with me in support of h.r. 1246. this bill under consideration is critical and timely and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill h.r. 1246? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass hrd 882, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 882, a bill to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the ntractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 882, the contracting tax accountability act of 2013, is in fact a broadly bipartisan bill introduced by mr. chaffetz of utah and ms. speier of california. they recognize that in fact contractors and in a companion bill, individual federal employees, have a high standard, a high responsibility and one of the least of which of those responsibilities is to pay their taxes in a timely fashion. sadly, we discover that on occasions we find ourselves with contractors who have not met that responsibility. most often, those contractors, by not meeting that

responsibility, may have in fact not deposited the withholding of the very workers who are working on our behalf. this kind of irresponsible behavior, although not always found, is found often enough that g.s.a. contractors are estimated to owe over $3 billion in taxes that are in arears and nearly $1.4 billion seriously in arears. the bill makes tax compliance a prerequisite for receiving a contract or being an agent and in fact recognizes those that do not make good on their taxes may in fact be seen eligible for potential suspension or debarment. federal contractors, for the most part, do comply and they do comply very well, but i believe that what ms. speier and chairman chaffetz have done is recognize that we must have

zero tolerance for people who, even after being recognized and and e seriously behind delinquent continue to paying their just taxes. again, often these taxes have nothing to do with a debate about income tax but rather withholding that simply wasn't done. these kinds of contractors are by definition the ones also likely to not live up to the high standards that the taxpayers expect by our contractors. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. cummings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank congressman chaffetz and congresswoman speier for introducing this very, very important piece of legislation. and i rise in strong support of h.r. 882, the contracting and tax accountability act. this bill is very similar to

legislation passed by the house in the 110th congress and i supported it then and i surely support it now. the bill enjoys bipartisan support. it is noncontroversial. last month it was considered by the oversight committee and passed unanimously. g.a.o. has reported that government contractors owed more than $5 billion, with a b, in unpaid federal taxes in 2004 and 2005. unpaid taxs owed by contractors -- taxes owed by contractors included payroll taxes as wells a corporate income taxes -- as well as corporate income taxes. g.a.o. has also found that some contractors with unpaid tax debts are repeat offenders that have failed to pay their taxes over many years. including in one case for almost 20 years. h.r. 882 would allow the federal government to ensure the contractors seeking to do

business with the federal government have paid their faxes -- taxes before they can receive a federal contract. it was revised in 2008 to require contractors to certify that they do not owe a delinquent tax debt to the federal government. the bill builds on that requirement by providing federal agencies the means to verify contractors' claims. the legislation will also ensure that responsible contractors no longer have to complete -- compete with tax delinquents. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation in order to preserve the fairness in the contracting process. i'll also take a moment to salute our chairman, mr. issa, for making sure that this bill reached the floor. with that, we will now be able to address some of these deadbeat contractors and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my honor to recognize the author of this bill, a champion for accountability of the federal work force, federal contractors, mr. chaffetz of utah, for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank chairman issa for is unyielding support in pursuit of good government and i thank him for his support of this piece of legislation. i also thank ranking member cummings in working with him and his staff, and certainly with representative speier who also shares this passion, of making sure that contractors are held responsible for their actions. mr. speaker, today tens of millions of individuals and corporations all across america will file their federal tax returns and pay back any money they owe the federal government. however, unfortunately, mr. speaker, there will be some who fail to meet this obligation and simply refuse to pay the taxes they owe. this legislation, h.r. 882, for the contracting and tax

accountability act, has a very simple purpose. to prohibit companies with serious delinquent federal tax debts from doing business with the federal government. and receiving new federal contracts. since federal contracts draw compensation and funding from taxpayer dollars, we must ensure that they are complying with existing laws and paying their own taxes. mr. speaker, just last month this legislation passed through the oversight and government reform committee by voice vote and it is identical to legislation that also unanimously passed the committee last congress. going back a little further, mr. speaker, both the 110th and the 111th congress, former congressman brad ellsworth of indiana, introduced similar versions of this bill. in the 110th congress this passed again by voice vote. begs the question what's happening over there in the united states senate, but we will continue to pursue this to make sure this legislation passes. also back in the 110th congress, then senator barack obama, sponsored the senate companion, quote, contractor

and tax account act, end quote, to -- accountability act, end quote, but unfortunately that legislation did not progress in either chamber then. as president mr. obama has continued to fight for the contractors to be held accountabilityble. i concur with the president on this issue -- accountable. i concur with the president on this issue. this is bipartisan. we're going to spear head this here in the house of representative and make sure that it becomes law but the united states senate is going to have to step up and do something at some point. this is a good piece of legislation. h.r. 882 establishes a process through which persons with serious delinquent federal tax debts may be prohibited from receiving federal contracts and grants. legislation is designed to mandate the tax compliance be a prerequisite for receiving a federal contract or a grant. as the chairman knows, the federal acquisition regulation known as the f.a.r., was revised in 2008. under the f.a.r. revision, if a

contractor is delinquent, then the standard governmentwide occurs in order to hold the contractor accountability -- accountable. h.r. 828 would codify that regulation and provide a means to verify the contractor's certification. the legislation also provides broad exceptions for debts being paid in a timely manner and debts to which due process hearings have been requested or is pending. like the federal employee tax accountability act to be considered next, this legislation is meant to affect those thumbing their nose at uncle sam and the united states of america. the government accountability office, the g.a.o., has reported that government contractors owe over $5 billion in unpaid federal taxes. many of the contractors have repeatedly failed to fulfill their tax obligations and have delinquenciesies have that extended over multiple tax periods. g.a.o. evenly identified instances in which companies are delinquent in their taxes, have one contract -- have won contracts by submitting lower

offers than companies that comply with their tax obligations, giving them an undue advantage. those who ignore the channels and processes in place to fulfill their tax obligations must be held accountable and they must play on the same even playing field. this legislation will do just that. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation. i again thank chairman issa for his support as well as ranking member cummings and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, and the co-sponsor of this legislation two minutes, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for allotting me some team time to speak on this bill and to our chairman, mr. issa, for moving this bill forward and to my colleague, mr.

chaffetz from utah, who is the author of this measure. imagine what our constituents are thinking right now. imagine if they really knew that while they're scurrying around trying to get their tax returns filed on time and making sure they have adequate funds in their accounts to write out that check, that there are corporations in this country that continue to get contracts from the united states of america even though they don't pay their taxes. so this bill will ensure that taxpayer dollars do today only go to responsible contractors who do not have significant debts to the federal government. this bill will make it clear to all contracting officials, no more tax money for deadbeat contractors. as it stands, delinquent contracters are not only eligible for future contracts, but they actually get them. with one of the largest budgets

in the federal government, the defense department already has a reputation for letting contractors -- and to underscore this point, when the defense department needed a new p.r. contractor, they settled on a company that still owed $4 million in taxes. how can we allow that to happen? another company that owed the federal government $1 million in taxes was paid an additional $1 million as a contractor from the department of defense. instead of using the money to pay back the government, what did he do with the money? he bought a boat, some cars and a home overseas. even the irs, the agency responsible for collecting our taxes, has fallen down on the job, on making sure that our taxpayer dollars only go to contractors who have paid them. the inspector general found the i.r.s. gave 11 companies $356 million in contracts, despite owing millions of dollars themselves.

so, the question is, why would we reward that? let's get this done this year. i would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if in fact the senate is the log jam, if that's what's going to prevent this from taking effect, let's co-write a letter to the president of the united states and ask him under his power with executive order to take the steps necessary to put this in place. so that we don't continue to have contractors who do not pay their taxes getting rewarded with contracts by the federal government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, at this time i have no other speakers and would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentlelady from washington, d.c., ms. norton, three minutes. how much time do we have, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: 14 1/2 minutes remaining.

the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i just wanted to thank mr. chaffetz and mr. issa for this bill. and initially there was a bill involving federal employees and we had concern that often when bills come forward for federal employees they are not bills that recognize the substantial funds that contractors receive and they look closely at it and have come forward. do i want to say that in light of the fact that i'm going to oppose the next bill, and do i believe there's a difference between employees and contractors, and i don't want to get into that right at this moment, but i do want to say for these employees, for example, undergoing a pay freeze now, and furloughs, there's one thing uncle sam can do that he apparently hasn't done with these contracts, he can garnish wages and you can bet your bottom dollar there's ana federal employee that can owe some move and to prove they owe money to the federal government, his pay will be

garnished. but as we heard the gentlelady from california say, these contractors continue to receive the largess, i guess that's how they regard it, of the federal government can certainly be extinguished in that way. i do believe that the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee deserve credit for in fact where they -- at least where they saw that there should be some equity that contractors would be treated similarly to employees. and i yield back the bam of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i would reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i urge members to vote in favor of this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from california voiced. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. issa: i made a decision to bring these two bills separately rather than combine them for a reason. this is not controversial. but failed to get through the senate. the other bill has some controversy but i'd like to say that in fact i believe that both bills would tell the american people, both the one related to contractors and the next one we'll be considering related to federal employees, that we hold ourselves to the standards that the american people, the american taxpayer, expects us to. so although i know that ms. norton does not support the next bill with the kind of vigor and optimism and positive discussion that we've heard on the previous two bills and on this, i would say that the important things for -- thing for all of us to understand is that the money here is significant, but the principle of holding our contractors and in the next bill ourselves responsible to a high level of integrity and not having those continue without us taking note of it, i think offers the same

statement to the american people at a time of sequestration. at a time in which we're questioning how much we can afford from our government. and for that reason i want these bills to be considered separately. i intend to vote for both of them. i believe both of them have merit for the same reason. but i do think my colleagues on the other side -- thank my colleagues on the other side because this bill i think is truly without controversy and should be without controversy and with that i ask all of those here to note that we on a unanimous basis support h.r. 882, ask its support and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 882 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing ntil counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 249. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 24, h.r. 249, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for . deral employment the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize myself for such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, first of all, i'd like to commend mr. chaffetz. like the last piece of legislation, mr. chaffetz reintroduces a bill that passed overwhelmingly in the last congress but was not taken up by the senate. as mr. chaffetz said, it is in fact time for the senate to at least give us an up or down vote on this legislation by -- ing it early why the early in the congress and we want to hold ourselves to the standards that the taxpayers believe we should. all federal employees are currently held for paying their taxes by the code of ethics of the executive branch. so how can someone who, by the code of ethics, in fact not

have satisfied in good faith eir obligations as citizens, including all financial obligations, especially those to the federal, state and local taxes that are sbose imposed by all, how could in fact someone who hasn't doesn't it and reached the point of garnishment, reached the point that they are unwilling to pay their just taxes, have no appeals nor any pending, how can they in fact continue to expect to be federal employees? the truth is these flows have given up any question about their ethics by avoid -- the truth is these employees have given up any question about their ethics. and i'd like the speaker to take note that in fact for us as federal employees our withholding is already taken out of our taxes. so to become seriously arrears in our taxes has to do with activities outside our role.

we're well insured for health care. we in fact -- our taxes have already been withheld. although there are occasions in which a taxpayer may find themselves seriously in arrears for some reason otherwise, this bill intends and has carefully crafted every possible exception so they could continue to work if in fact reasonable measures have been taken by the employee. in fact, if an employee simply agrees to be garnished for past taxes, pursuant to the law, they in fact can continue to work. so i'd like to preface -- i'll put the rest of my remarks in, but i'd preface that this bill has been passed before. it's been well thought out. we sent a letter to the i.r.s. asking them for a timely response and to my dismay they were not able to respond to us by the deadline. of course the deadline for responding really was in the last congress.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: as one who represents many federal social s with the security administration smack dab in the middle of my district, with many of my constituents getting up at 4:00 in the morning catching the train over here from baltimore to -- howard county and baltimore county to work for the federal government, for a group of people who are many of whom are being subjected now to furloughs, have been subjected to pay freezes, in some instances placed in a position where they have to pay more towards their pensions and get less, a group of people who in

many instances i run into them at the gas station, at the pancake house or wherever i may see them who are very much concerned about a word that has become a significant word in this house, uncertainty. i strongly oppose h.r. 249, a measure that would require the federal government to fire -- to fire federal employees who have an outstanding tax debt. the legislation is unwarranted, unnecessary and in fact counterproductive. i believe the federal employees, like all americans, should pay their taxes and i don't think there's one single member of this congress that feels otherwise. we all believe that federal employees and all folks who owe taxes ought to pay them. federal workers hold the public trust and should be held to a

high standard of conduct. the fact is that federal employees have met and exceeded that standard. the legislation is unwarranted because the tax delinquency rate for federal employees is less of the general public. the tax delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2%. in the same year the tax delinquency rate for federal employees was only 6.2%. now, let me make it clear, i would suggest that it would be st and wonderful if that it's tage was zero, but not. but again, the general delinquency rate, 8.2%, federal workers 3.62%. i.r.s. and other executive

agencies already have procedures in place to recover back taxes from federal employees. the payment levy program, they can impose a continuous levies and annuities up to 15% until the debt is paid. agencies also have the authority to take disciplinary action against employees for delinquent taxes. that which may include removal, if necessary. the legislation is counterproductive because it would make it more difficult to collect unpaid taxes from federal employees by requiring their termination and eliminating the ability to impose levies on their salaries. on a another note, i just left about three hours ago a job fair that i sponsored in my district where 9,000 unemployed people showed up and in talking to some of the various agencies they said, congressman,

congressman, glad that the state of maryland is now dealing with the i shall utes a little bit differently because we used to take everybody's license. we used to make it almost impossible for them to make money so they could pay the child support. they said now we're beginning to turn some of these laws around because we want to be effective and efficient in collecting the money. here if a person has no job, how will they pay the taxes? so i'm also concerned that the legislation is being rushed to the floor today to apparently make a political point. during committee, debate over the legislation, questions were raised and to his credit, to his credit, the chairman agreed that we would try to get some responses from the i.r.s. about the rules and procedures regarding debt collection, options for resolving delinquencies, payment options, tax delinquencies of i.r.s. employees and other issues. the chairman promised to obtain the answers to these questions from the i.r.s. and to work with democrats before the bill was brought to the floor.

now, i have absolutely no doubt that i.r.s. failed to do what they were supposed to do. they did not give us the information, but there was a reason why we wanted that information. we wanted the information so that we could base our decisions on sound facts so that we would -- we are placing people in a position where they will lose their way of feeding their family and having a roof over their head and taking care of their kids, it would be nice to have information. i tell my staff all the time, give me the information so that i can make a decent decision. and so unfortunately we don't have that information and hopefully at some point we'll get it from the i.r.s. again, i don't blame, mr. speaker, the chairman. he did his part. he submitted the letter. i know he did. and so -- but we still have not heard from i.r.s. pressed 4, 2012, i

information. again, without this legislation, it is unclear whether various scenarios under which taxpayer disputes a tax debt would be exempted under the bill. for example, it is unclear whether an appeal from a collection due process hearing, litigation, proceedings in the u.s. tax court or hearings under the i.r.s.'s collection appeals program would trigger an exemption. contrary to the chairman's assurances, the republican lirpe has insisted on bringing this bill to the floor without the benefit of this information and without resolving the many concerns raised during the committee debate. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill. again, we need information. but more importantly, something the chairman said that i think we need to be clear on, i want to see a situation where

everybody pays every dime that they are supposed to pay. butry don't think that people get fired if they're not federal employees when they have a tax delinquency. so when we're talking about fairness, we're talking again, we're talking about the federal employee and then we're talking about everybody else. and so with that, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i yield back -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman is right, and i would take note that this afternoon the i.r.s. did offer to speak to us over the phone but had no answers in writing which continues to befuddle me we can't get answers and i will continue to work with the ranking member to get those answers. at this time i'd like to recognize the author of the bill, the gentleman from utah -- i yield time to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, i yield him five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yuth is recognized for five minutes.

-- utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: i want to thank the chairman and speaker boehner and majority leader cantor for bringing this legislation to the floor. this is not a new topic. this is not something that sprung up within the last 10 days here. tax date, 2013, i want to press upon my employees that federal employees who consciously, consciously ignore channels and processes in place to fulfill their tax obligations must be held accountable. they must be held accountable. this bill addresses noncompliance with our tax laws by prohibiting individuals with serious delinquent tax debt from federal civilian employment. most taxpayers file accurate tax returns and pay them on time. most federal workers do that. the overwhelming majority of them do it. in fact, statistically, more than 96% of our federal employees do the right thing and on time. unfortunately there are a few bad apples out there.

there's a few people out there despite all the processes, appeals, they choose to thumb their nails at the rest of us and unfortunately there are 107,000 federal workers who don't pay their taxes. it accounts for about $1 billion in uncollected taxes. in 2011, the most recent year for which the i.r.s. data is available, they tell us that 107,658 civilian federal employees owe more than $1 billion. now, the statistics, they have a greater compliance than the rest of the public. but let's remember, when you're unemployed, you probably going to have a hard time complying. employment for those that are federal workers is 100%. they have a job. they have a responsibility to pay their taxes. as the chairman indicated, the intent of the bill is simple. if you are a' federal employee

or applicant, you should be making a good faith effort to pay your taxes or to dispute them as the taxpayers have a right to do. under h.r. 249, individuals having is a serious delinquent tax debt is ineligible for employment in the executive and legislative branch, including congressional staff. serious delinquent tax debt is defined as an outstanding federal tax debt for which a notice of lien has been publicly filed, and there are exemptions. . if you are being paid and perhaps wages are garnished, you are exempted and not going to affect you. the i.r.s. has told us on the record in a hearing that the overwhelming majority of the 107,000 fall within that category. they testified to the body in the last congress that roughly 12% of the 100,000 people would fall into this category talking

about this. we did ask the i.r.s. about this. and i also want to note, mr. chairman, on page four of the legislation, an employee may continue to serve in a situation involving financial hardship if the continued service of such an employee is in the best interest of the united states as determined on a case-by-case basis. there is an opportunity to have the person who is in charge to make a determination. you know what? i have looked at this and i grant this person an exception. but as i did when i spoke to a group of h.r. professionals who work within the federal government. we said, you need tools to take care of the bad a.m. will -- apples and they were shaking their head yes, please give us this tool. agencies will also conduct periodic reviews for tax leans

and -- leans. and including going before the merit protection board. in the last congress, mr. speaker, mr. lynch who is as passionate on this issue, offered some amendments and let me read from the record when we september the amendment offered by mr. lynch, mr. lynch, quote, without refinement here, i would certainly vote for the bill if the amendment was included. the amendment was included and we did it in the bipartisan way and that's why it failed in the house of representatives and in addition, individuals have six months to demonstrate that their ax debt is not seriously delinquent. something we moved forward with. for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this

legislation should sound familiar because we did pass it. mr. speaker -- mr. issa: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. chafechafe i would like to -- mr. chaffetz: i would like to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i say to everyone we were doing so well in the last few bills showing how bipartisan our committee should be and could be and i mean that sincerely because the committee has been working in a bipartisan way particularly this way. as i indicated in my prior remarks there isn't perfect

similar met try between employees and contractors and here is one of the examples where we do not have that. mr. speaker, i am a firm believer and lead by example. i think that applies to members the ngress and i believe federal employees believe that applies to them. why else would they have a delinquency rate less than half the tax delinquency rate of other americans? they know they are an extraordinary work force. here is a work force that has already stepped up front beyond the american people. they are the ones who were the first to sacrifice for the deficit and they keep sacrificing now in the third year of a freeze and a sequester

on top of it. for uld we pick them out any other purpose except a symbolic purpose, which is what i see here. it's not lost on any of us, mr. speaker, that today is april 15. i suppose this is a bill to make sure everybody understands, that we understand it's april 15. i understand entirely the importance of symbolic moves. i put a press release myself or taxation without representation. but here we have the best work force in the united states, most specialized work force that has given more than any of us. i have a serious legal problem with this bill. this bill defines a seriously delinquent federal worker as one against whom there is notice of lin.

a notice of lien. the answer may come as to any claim in our legal system from the defendant. here on the basis of the claim alone, we are going so far as to allow even the employee to be fired, this in a time when americans including federal employees have had the worst hardship since the depression. it's just not necessary. if they have the best tax record in the united states, why then would they be picked out? mr. cummings: i yield to the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. ms. norton: the i.r.s. already has special procedures to recover taxes from its own employees. and i commend the i.r.s. for that, including by the way of

garnishing their wages up to 15% and take delinary actions, why would we need anything further against our federal employees who have endured so much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i join with the gentlelady from the district of columbia in applauding what the i.r.s. has done. the i.r.s. gave itself the rules that mr. chaffetz would like to have all federal civilian workers living under. the i.r.s. has a delinquency rate of 1%. you take a fraction that could be out of compliance for a short period of time and that's what happened. you lowered the overall rate, for example, the government printing office, 7.6%. the 316,000 people at the department of veteran affairs, 13,000 of them or 4.3% are

seriously in arrears. mr. speaker, the gentlelady is absolutely right. the i.r.s. did the right thing and it worked. you have a compliance rate down to 1% or 99% positive compliance rate for all the federal workers who are listening carefully, they are looking to their left and right wondering who these deadbeatsr because in most cases it's the low 10% and the i.r.s. will add 1%. case and. has made its i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from from maryland is recognized. to the ngs: i yield gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i adopt the remarks made by ms. norton.

the delinquency rate of federal employees is far below for what it is for other employees on a general level throughout this country. i adopt the gentlelady's remarks and say yes, this is april 15. and my staff said i had to pay this. the implication is that we brought a bill dealing with federal employees this day. why? because federal employees are very easy to target. for people who don't like government, well the federal employees, look at what they are doing. boy those deadbeat federal employees. that's the message here. now if this were a problem you really wanted to deal with, it didn't have to be april 15, it could have been february 15 or june 15. but no, that's not the message here. the message is that somehow federal employees need to be

targeted. i understand they work for us and easy to get at and we are getting at them almost every week. we are furloughing them and suggesting they pay more and not paying enough for retirement and suggesting that somehow they are less than stellar employees. but before i conclude, let me .ake a second to look at this we had a tragic event happen in boston today and the president was quick to call deval patrick and said we are going to send federal employees from the f.b.i., a.t.f., other agencies, to make sure we can protect america. we extend our sympathies, of course, to all the victims and their families, we express our

concern -- mr. cummings: i yield a minute and a half. mr. hoyer: express our sympathies to all of them. and we recognize they have employees at the municipal, boston, around this country, the state level and yes at the federal level, who are going to try to respond and make sure america's safe. let's send a message to those federal employees, because they're our employees, that we respect them, their contribution and let us not bring a bill to the floor and by the way, the gentleman is correct, it passed, not with my vote last year, because i thought it was a message that was incorrect. and i thought there are processes in place today which allow us to act against those who are tax delinquents. but frankly, this isn't a

discussion about huge tax delinquents, huge tax frauds, people who are not paying taxes to this country in which they are being so successful. so, mr. speaker, first of all, we send our regret s to those who have been the subject of a terrorist act, whether it's a domestic or foreign terrorist act. and secondly, we say to those federal employees who time after time, week after week, month after month, are being disparageaged by their board of directors. and we understand the quality of their service and contributions and yes, we understand there are some who don't do what they ought to do and we demand that they do so, but this isn't the way to do it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i'm not

going to do too much responding to something that asks why something was brought on why it was brought on april 15, except to say that the minority was happy to bring on april 15 to hold contractors responsible for taxes on tax day and this is a tax day in which 99% of americans have paid all their taxes whether they like to or not a a small percentage have not. and i would like to yield a minute to the gentleman from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: only in washington, d.c., can we say this is not a serious issue. 107,000 people and $1 billion in uncollected taxes when the very americans are paying out their paychecks are writing out their checks and i would look at the companion piece of legislation that is $5 billion that deals with the contractors. we are saying to the employees

of the federal government, the men and women who are doing their job, they're doing the right thing, they work hard, they love this country and first one to run and respond, we're going to take care of you. we've got your back because every once in a while there is a bad apple or someone that works in that agency doesn't play by the rules. they give this country and give their counterparts and employees a bad name. we are going to stand up for them by giving the head of that department and the agency the opportunity to fire somebody if they don't comply. pay your federal taxes, you are in good shape. don't pay your federal taxes, don't put yourself in place, then we are going to give you the opportunity to be let go. couple mr. issa: iry serve. mr. cummings: how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has six minutes remaining.

mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, a minute and a half. mr. cartwright: i rise in opposition to h.r. 249. on close examination, it is obvious that this bill is deceptive, unnecessary and even counterproductive. it's a bill that puts additional requirements on federal workers that the rest of the public does not face that of losing their job. it's a very difficult thing to collect taxes or any debt from somebody who doesn't have a job. the i.r.s. already has procedures in place to collect back taxes from federal employees. the federal payment levy program allows the i.r.s. to impose a continuous levy on federal and only federal employees up to 15%. this means federal employees

already are held to a higher standard and the i.r.s. has additional weapons in its arsenal making the bill before us an over the top and punitive measure. a solution that will make it harder to collect taxes and i question whether this is a sincere effort to improve our nation or just another in a long series of unfair attacks on federal employees and the unions that represent them. these are people who haven't had a raise in three years. these are people many of them are receiving furlough notice. these are people that we are attacking in a new and better way and mr. speaker, i suggest at some point how we are supposed to attract capable individuals when we treat them like this. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the bill. i yield back.

mr. issa: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. but may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to harken back to the comments of president obama in january of 2010, he was talking about delinquent contractors, not federal workers, but listen to the president's words new york his own words, to wonder if these -- contractors are families, they're people, some of them are bad apples. listen to the president and -- he's talking about contractors, shouldn't the same be true from federal employees. quote from president obama, there are people who work every day you pay taxes you owe because it's a fundamental responsibility of citizenship

yet somehow it's become standard practice to give contracts to companies that don't pay their taxes. later he said, it's inefficiency and it's wasteful by the larger and more fundamental pint that it is wrong. it is wrong for companies to take taxpayer dollars and not be taxpayers themselves sms we need to insist on the same sense of responsibility in washington that so many of you strive to uphold in your own lives, in your own families and in your own businesses. the same should be true for federal workers when the federal workers are giving out federal contracts by the hundreds of billions of dollars, let them be able to look people in the face and say, we hold ourselves to the same high standard. we're not having a separate standard for contractors for you. those of us that do work for the federal government are honest in your dealings, we pay our taxes and if we don't around here they eventually fire us. that seems to be commonsense and the right approach. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields

back. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed with s.con.res. 8 setting forth the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary level for fiscal years 2016 through 2023 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of h.r. 249, this bill would bar

individuals with a frl tax lien from being employed by the federal government. i agree with congressman chaffetz and supports of the bill that all citizens, including federal employees, should pay their taxes. however this bill is far more focused on attacking federal employees than resolving problems. mr. cardenas: this is a political document not a policy solution. the i.r.s. says tax delinquency rate for federal employees is half that of the arch american taxpayer. this legislation is the wrong approach and is destinned to be grossly ineffective because it makes collecting outstanding taxes difficult by firing the very person we would like to pay their taxes. as a former business owner myself, putting people into homes, i used find out time after time that the i.r.s. would violate their agreement, it's the i.r.s. who violates the agreement, somebody says, i'll pay it on a regular basis and the i.r.s. changes it without notice that will and does happen to employees all

the time, i'm sure. thank you very muchful the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: the gentleman from california is new and i'm sure he did not mean to disparage our intention. our intention was in fact to bring accountability and in fact a sense of pride to the federal work force, one in which 96-point-something percent pay their taxes and of the remaining ones that do not, the vast majority have made arrangements to deal with taxes in arrears. but mr. speaker, less than a year ago, i had my house robbed. i live in a low crime neighborhood. less than 2% of the homes get robbed in a given year. but the police still responded, still said i'll do something about your home being burglarized. all we're saying here is, let's stop talking about the 97% that do the right thing and deal with those who do not in a way that encourages them, like the

i.r.s. has, to start doing the right thing and lower that failure rate to 1% or less. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman. mr. chaffetz at one point said we have a few bad apples. and the chairman suggests, who are these deadbeats. let's talk about who these deadbeats really are. $3.5 billion. 54% of that $3.5 billion is attributed to military, active military, military reserves, nd retired military. now, i don't know about you but i think maybe we should rethink

this. because the truth of the matter is, when 54% have either been in the military are active military, then i suggest that we should rethink this. furthermore, 46% of those, quote, deadbeats, are civilian federal employees retired and military federal employees, retired. if in fact they're now coming back as an applicant -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. speier: i yield back. mr. issa: the gentlelady is entitled to her opinion but i don't believe her facts. our information shows that in fact, first of all this bill only applies to civilian personnel, it does not affect uniformed military personnel. uniformed military personnel can be court-martialed for not living up to their obligations, that is more than we're considering here. the fact is the numbers we presented, the numbers quoted here, represent civilian

workers. some of those civilian workers also serve in the reserves, some of them are also retired individuals, but let's understand, this is not about the men and women deployed in uniform. this is about civilian workers who may have a supplemental income from retirement, who may also be reserves, but this is all about people who reserve -- who receive more than $100,000 a year and have not made arrangement os catch up on taxes that are seriously in arrears of $10,000 or more. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from virginia -- how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: i yield two 1/2 minutes for the gentleman this -- i yield two and a half minutes for the gentleman to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mcdermott: the fact is, federal employees are -- they have a delinquency rate that is less than half of what it is for the average american taxpayer. the fact is, that they're already -- there already exists programs to garnish wages for delinquent filers. the fact is, agencies can already take disciplinary action against employees who have tax debt, including termination. so why are we doing this? to punish people because they chose publicer is vess? this bill would have virtually no effect on revenue because there are so few civil servants who are delinquent and invariably there is some understandable reason, just as there has been for a number of our colleagues over the years. so it's not about bringing down the debt. this is about threatening federal workers. singling them out. i sugg -- by suggesting that

there is some kind of endemic problem when there isn't. you've talked -- docked the federal work force with up to 14 unpaid furlough days, cut billions of dollars from their pension and pay, you sequestered $600 million from the i.r.s. federal employees work for our constituents and work for us. their job is to carry out the law we make. the majority of this house apparently ran for office on the claim the federal government isn't working and now they're trying to prove it by threatening and accusing and thus demoralizing the dedicated public servants that have fought our wars, built our roads and bridges enforced our laws, invented the technology that powers our economy and research the treatments that heal and sieve our loved ones. mr. moran: and all this congress can do, is to threaten them with bills like this. this is not a fair bill.

thus i urge a no vote on it. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: this bill doesn't threaten federal employees, it only threatens the federal employees that don't pay their federal taxes. you pay your taxes because you get your income from the taxpayers, doesn't affect you. you know what i hear continually, mr. speaker, is, no problem here, don't worry about it. it's $1 billion in uncollected taxes. for far too long, congress has ignored the problem, they keep giving contractors contracts to the tune of $5 billion a year, i introduced that bill as well. to suggest this bill is unfair, unwarranted, it's going to harm federal employees -- it's going to protect federal employees. because the ones doing the right job, that are patriotic are protected under this bill. only those who thumb their nose

and won't pay their taxes are the ones who should be scared of this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. cummings: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: this bill singles out federal employees suggesting and accusing there's a problem within the federal work force. mr. chaffetz: will the gentleman yield. mr. moran: i would if we had the time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having ex-tired -- expired, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: they haven't paid about a billion dollars in taxes. to suggest there isn't a problem is factually without merit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three and a

quarter minutes. mr. issa: i yield myself the remained ore they have time. i'd like to yield on a quieter note than the debate. the debate was, rightfully so, heated. it was heated because we're making an important symbolic statement in this legislation. the billion dollars is a lot of money to the taxpayers listening but the principle is extremely important. it shows that when the i.r.s. changed their rules they didn't fire many people. i'm sure, in fact, what they got was compliance. far yeater compliance. let's go through a few things. the gentlelady mitigating circumstance colleague and friend from california, ms. speer, used a larger number -- ms. speer, used a larger number -- ms. speier used a larger number. we have been talking about $3 billion. $2.976 billion. that's about the federal plofse -- civilian employees of the federal government. they have a delinquency rate of 3.6 %.

she mentioned other individuals. i want to mention their delinquency rate. civilian retired, these are not individuals you can fire, they're retired, but their delinquency rate is 2.5%. military active duty, these are the men and women who have a different set of rule, they can be court-martialed if they don't live up to their obligation, %. remember that -- 2%. remember that 2% includes all these who may eventually ply. military reserve and guard, the men and women who give up their day jobs, often taking a huge pay cut in doing so, 2.4%. military retired. 4.3%. mr. speaker, i can't account for why when military people retire they find themselves in arrears in taxes but what i can say is when we look at 1% for the i.r.s., % for those getting a private's -- private's pay or corporal's pay they manage to

keep their taxes straight. the federal work force has a high compliance rate, as has been said repeatedly by my colleague. their compliance rate is nearly twice the rate of the public as a whole. of course the public as a whole includes over 7% unemployment, it includes all kinds of other characteristics that lead to people being in the fault. what we are doing here today is saying, the i.r.s. made a decision to have a compliance standard that has dramatically reduced failure co-comply and put us in a situation in which people in the i.r.s. can say proudly, we pay our taxes and we pay our taxes at a 99% rate and we deal with those who do not live up to promising to pay the rest. we just want the same for the federal work force and i believe federal workers listening here today would agree that in fact since most of them do exactly what's right, all of them should be held to do what is right. i urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 249? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the the yeas and nays are ordered are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following h.r. h.r. 882 by the

yeas and nays and h.r. 249 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote and remaining votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes. unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from california mr. issa to pass h.r. 1162 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1162, a bill to amend title 31 united states code to make improvements in the government accountability office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 408, the nays are zero, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the

motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker: the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. members will please clear the ell. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i ask for unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to commemorate a few people in boston who lost their lives and many others seriously injured today. i had to take the call -- i have yet to hear what it was but it was a terrible tragedy, i don't know if it was official

terrorism or unofficial or whatever but clearly anyone to act in such a manner is an evil person an deserves to be called such. i know today that the rest of america stands with us as we have stood with others, hopefully never to do again. but i know that people of massachusetts and people of boston, this was not just a boston event. the boston marathon is an international event that draws people from around the world and i would be shocked if many of the people injured today were not from massachusetts, possibly from other states and even other countries. today is a state holiday, patriots' day. we celebrate the actions of patriots back in 1776 that started the revolution that brought to birth that country. we remind ourselves regularly of what it is to be an american, what it is to be a patriot, what it is to be a member of a society that cares for each other. i know that the members of this house will join me in wishing well all those who were injured and sending our deepest

condolences and sympathy to those people hurt and wishing well our people of law enforcement. i have absolutely full faith and confidence that they will find the people who have done this and bring them to justice so we can all rest a little easier at some point. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker: the house will observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of today's attack in boston. the speaker: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. unfinished is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from california to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 882 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. awarding prohibit 9 of a grant unless the

prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing awarding the grant as the contractor or grantee has delinquent tax debt and for other purposes. the speaker: will the house suspend the rules and pass the vote -- bill as amended. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 407. the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are success pnded, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from california, mr. issa, to suspend the rules and

pass h.r. 249, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 24, h.r. 249, a bill to amend title 5, united states code to provide that persons having serious delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for federal employment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 250, the nays are 159. 2/3 not being in the affirm tifpk, the rules are not suspended -- affirmtive, the rules are not suspended and the ill is not passed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1101. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, today is patriots day in boston. to commemorate boston's fierce spirit of independence, bostonians host a worldwide marathon. today is run -- as runners approached the finish line of the marathon, terror erupted. two explosions, 14 second as i part, two other bombs were also found by law enforcement. the scene was described as a war zone. amidst the chaos and blood-filled streets, there was a group of people who ran toward the danger as they always do. they are america's first responders. they were there within moments. they disregarded their own safety to assist the wounded and secure the area. fellow marathon runners from all different states and countries also rescued strangers and the wounded. they helped treat their wounds

and carried others to safety. offers of help are coming from all over the united states. there are two confirmed dead and over 100 injured. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlelady from texas is correct. the house is not in order. those that are standing in the aisles, please take your seats. the gentleman will proceed. mr. poe: there are over two confirmed dead and over 100 injured. the person of interest in custody is reportedly a 20-year-old saudi national. those responsible for this attack of death and terror must be brought to justice because, mr. speaker, justice is what we do in this country. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for a minute. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i had planned to come to the floor this evening as we do every monday to talk about the importance of climate change

and the importance of this country addressing an issue that is so critical in front of us. but it seems tonight that it's actually quite more appropriate to offer my sincere condolences to the people of boston, of massachusetts, to all of us as americans, but most especially, to those who have been injured and lost their lives and to their families. and to offer up from the fourth congressional district and from all of us as americans, that we stand united behind this city and its efforts to bring those who have committed this great harm to justice. but also to stand with the families, the first responders, and all of those who were called to action. with that, mr. speaker, i'd yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, earlier today two explosionser to through the finish line -- explosions tore through the finish line of the boston marathon. these blasts have so far reportedly resulted in several deaths and perhaps more than 100 injures. mr. speaker, when faced with such adversity, now is the time for the american people to come together with their thoughts and prayers, for those who have been injured and those lives that have been so tragically lost. my thoughts and prayers are also with the boston fire rescue and emergency medical personnel that as i speak are still on the job. my thoughts and prayers are also with the boston police and investigators, that they will quickly determine who is responsible for what appears to be a cruel, senseless and cowardly act. today marks the 238th annual patriots day in boston. mr. speaker, let it be known that the evil that transpired today will not deter the courage of american patriots from the past, the present or the future. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank you, mr. speaker. it was my intent to come to the floor and discuss and urge the fast consideration of gun safety legislation and to speak as well to the jurisdictional issue of the homeland security department working on cybersecurity. but i too believe it is most important to offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives in boston, on patriots day in this boston marathon, that all the world comes to, to thank the first responders, those including nurses and doctors, volunteers, marathon runners and those who came from around the world to be in this unifying event. we give to them our deepest concern. i express my deepest sympathy to my colleagues who represent the boston area, to governor deval patrick and to those again, those familiar families

who lost loved ones and those who are now lingering in hospital beds, i wish them well and stand with my colleagues as we did on 9/11 and many other times, that those who perpetrated this heinous act will be brought to justice. will be brought to justice. as a member of the homeland security committee, mr. speaker, i also hope to look at venues and big events in the pending weeks and months so that we can reassess the safety and security for the american people. that is our charge and our responsibility and i know that together we will be able to accomplish it. again, my deepest sympathy for this loss. we cannot express the depth of the feelings of sympathy that we have. may god bless you and may those who have lost their lives, may they rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to rise and congratulate and celebrate those that have been participating as a part of

national robotics week this week. mr. speaker, robotics have bng an increasingly important part of our lives. both in the workplace and at home. and the opportunities for this exciting industry grow daily. minnesota has now developed into a leading robotics ecosystem, with dynamic organizations like robotics alley, minnesota's now in the forefront of finding opportunities for robotics innovation and growth outside their traditional military role. last month i had a chance to visit the robotics lab at weaver lake elementary school in maple grove where i saw sixth grade students that were participating in a google hangout with nasa engineers, learning important engineering skills. we should inspire these students and others to explore careers in robotics and other science, technology, engineering and math fields. i'm proud to say that minnesota has now led the nation in robotics innovation, in education. i'd like to wish all the students taking part in this minnesota state high school league's robotics competition good luck and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from texas rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. this was to be a happy, glorious day in boston. because of the explosions, the evil that were set off by evil people, at least two have been killed, we're told. and scores other wounded. our thoughts, our prayers go out for those who were wounded and injured and for the families of those who were killed. that will continue as the hurting continues. and may god help us to respond in the proper manner. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. without objection, the requests are -- the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. honda of california for today, mr. gary

g. miller of california for today and for the balance of the week and ms. moore of wisconsin for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. i thank the house leadership for allowing me to utilize this hour, to talk about some of the coming effects of the affordable care act. but first i do want to take a moment to join with so many of my colleagues who just spoke on the floor in acknowledging the sacrifices that were made by first responders, people who ran toward the sound of the destruction this afternoon in boston, and certainly we recognize that even now, at this late hour, doctors and

nurses are working in the emergency rooms in boston to try to provide comfort to the afflicted and save life and limb for those who were damaged this afternoon. an act so astonishing in its cruelty it is difficult to comprehend. but, mr. speaker, in 5 1/2 short months, from right now, ctober 1 of 2013, the full effects of the patience protection and affordable care act are going to start to be felt around the country. it's important that we take a few moments this evening and think about the road ahead, think about the things that are supposed to come online on october 1, and think about the contingencies if those things are not able to be accomplished. you know, it was just a few weeks ago in this town when,

speaking to the group of the american health insurance group , one of the information technologyists from health and human services, talking about this informational hub that is supposed to be developed by the department of health and human services this informational hub that will allow people to go online, to sign up for their benefits under the affordable care act. and the comments of this individual were quite revealing. speaking to a group earlier this year he said, the time for debating about the size of the text on the screen or the color of the background or whether it's a worldclass user experience, that's what we used to talk about two years ago. now let's just make sure it's not a third world experience. that's a pretty sobering added mission from someone who is charged with providing the

information hub and the information technology, the computer architecture, that is supposed to be the underpinnings of the affordable care act. bear in mind, it was three years ago, march, of 2010, that the affordable care act was signed into law. so three years later, billions of dollars spent in the implementation phase, and they're not sure if they can get this computer system up and running by october 1, which by law is when it is supposed to kick in. pretty significant admission from the information architect at the department of health and human services. now, barry cohen, who is the head of the center for consumer information and insurance oversight in the department of health and human services, when he was addressing the same group in response to a question , was a little bit unclear as to whether or not they would be

in fact ready on that october 1 dwed line. and he said, -- deadline. and he said, and i quote, well, we'll have to wait. then we'll be in a position to know which contingency plans we actually have to implement. in other words, we can't plan for the contingency until we get there and see that a contingency plan is necessary. but after all, what are contingency plans, but those plans that are put in place because something unexpected may happen? and last week, on the other side of the capitol, in the other body, senator from west virginia said, obamacare is so complicated and if it isn't done right the first time it will just simply get worse. that is a startling pronouncement from the biggest cheerleader and he said, i believe that the affordable care act is the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the

united states congress. tax reform is obvious has been huge, too, but up to this point, this, the affordable care act, is just beyond comprehension. now, what does the secretary of department of health and human services have to say about all of this? she maintains that the affordable care act will lower the cogs of premiums for everyone, but in fact, in the past couple of weeks, she has admitted and this is a quote, these folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time and there may be a higher cost with getting into that market. translation, you are going to be paying more. she goes on to say, some men, some younger customers, could say their rates increase. women and older customers could see their rates drop. so, mr. speaker, i would submit that the coming rate shock is

something that -- for which people are actually unprepared. they have been told for three years that after all, this is the affordable care act and going to make health care more affordable for all americans, but the reality is somewhat different from the truth that is espoused by the department of health and human services. let's think about these things because they are important. remember when the affordable care act was debated and remember the president discussing the affordable care act and everyone wanted to talk about patients with pre-existing conditions are frozen out of the system and can't get care or get insurance, people can get care, but nevertheless this was proposed as an enormous problem and the affordable care act was going to fix it. next year when the exchanges are

up and running, people may be incorporated into that system. until that day arrives, they were to be taken care of through what was known as the pre-existing condition program, the fred pre-existing risk pool that was set up for the first time under the affordable care act. $ billion was put forward to help people with pre-existing conditions and help them with their premiums. there was a barrier to entry. you had to be uninsured for six months time before you were eligible for coverage under the pre-existing program. i thought the supreme court was going to knock this thing out of the water. no way in the world the highest court in the land can look at this thing and agree that it is constitutional under the commerce clause. you can compel commerce in order

to regulate. i knew that that day when the supreme court ruled they would agree with me. but then they went on to say that since it's a tax, and congress has the power to tax and for that reason, it is not unconstitutional and the law is allowed to stand. leading up to that day, i was so convinced that we as members of congress had an obligation to our constituents, to people who were, in fact, thinking they were covered under the affordable care act. we had the obligation to provide a kings si plan, people who were covered under this pre-existing plan. i wasn't right and the law was constitutional. but what would have happened last june 30 if the supreme court said it is unconstitutional. people who were in the pre-existing program would have found themselves without

insurance and that would have been a pretty significant event to have occurred. i felt we needed to have a contingency plan to cover those individuals. here we are six, eight months later and what happened in january of this year? the program ran out of money. they said we're not taking any more people into this program. we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago and heard from a patient who had thought she was in the que in that waiting period to get taken into the pre-existing federal program, but they suspended enrollment. there were a lot of people who were in that six-month waiting period waitsing for their time to come up so they could enroll in the pre-existing condition program. but at the end of the january, they are shut out. the committee wrote a letter to the president and said we would like to help you here. there are probably other monies

that can be moved around and continue to cover these individuals until january 1, 2014, when the exchanges and medicaid expansion and all the good eyes will come on-line. one of the things that we were told up to the passage of the affordable care act thrrks were millions of people who fell into that pre-existing trap. you heard figures of eight million to 12 million people. speaker pelosi said 125 million people had pre-existing conditions. well, in fact, that was wrong, because when you look at the people who are covered by insurance in this country, they are covered under employer-sponsored insurance. pre-existing conditions can occur in that environment, but it is rarer and an open enrollment periods where the

employee can can be taken on. 65% of the population not the issue that it is. in the small group market, individual market, there was a problem. now on the numbers that were -- people quoted prior to the passage of the affordable care act, eight million, 10 million, 12 million people, how many people were in the federal pre-existing program at the end of the june when i was worried that the supreme court was going to strike it down. 65,000 people. 65,000 people with a compelling story and not a small population, but a management population if we are trying to correct the problem in a country of 310 million, i would submit we can do that without destroying the existing program, employer-sponsored insurance that people said they liked and

wanted to keep. remember, if you liked you could keep it. instead of keeping it for a compelling population, the administration and at the time, congressional democrats pushed through a bill, we just want to control everything about your health care and they got their wish. but now we have probably 100,000 people in january who are on the fred pre-existing program and now, no new people can sign up for it because it is going to run out of money. mr. speaker, i would submit that there is other money available in things like the -- we call them slush funds that were built into the affordable care act, things like the medicare modernization act. things like the funds to allow for other activities in the center for medicaid and medicare services. by shifting money around, these

people with pre-existing conditions could be taken care of and we have the ability to do that. it would be a relatively easy lift at this point. and perhaps next week we will see legislation on the floor. but can you imagine if this had been a republican president who had taken people off. would you have heard about it from every newspaper in the country. how much did you hear? well, you are probably hearing about it tonight for the first time and probably will hear about it next week. people don't want to talk about the failures in the affordable care act, but it is important we do so. but when this bill was passed into law, march of 2010, then speaker of the house, speaker pelosi claimed that the affordable care act will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately. that hasn't turned out to be exactly true. the federal reserve reported that employers are citing the

uncertainty embedded in the affordable care act as reasons for layoffs and reluctance to hire new employees. the application that was proposed by the department of health and human services for people to fill out, to get coverage in the exchanges next year actually asks an applicant if their job is no longer offering health coverage in the next year. clearly embedded in the affordable care act was a risk to job creation in this country and actually now seeing that come into being. the law does not treat everyone the same. it creates essentially a new underclass. it promises universal coverage but leaves some without coverage. now one of the most significant embedded problems of the affordable care act, if an

employer is providing insurance, that employer isn't required to do that or if that employee looks for coverage in the exchange, that employee may be fine. but if the employer provides the insurance, great. but he doesn't have to provide that insurance to their family. and this is a significant problem, because that family, which right now may be covered, next year, may not. but here's the other part of that. that family would not be eligible for a subsidy in the insurance exchange because the employer is providing the benefit to the employee but nothing in the law that said they had to continue family coverage. who is going to be affect snd primarily women and children and "the for the worth star telegram is generally supportive of the administration and the affordable care act. under their headline, 500 thurks

-- 500,000 children will not get coverage. this was a rule proposed by the department of treasury and the internal revenue service. children who lose insurance because the primary employee will be covered but the family will not, those children who lose insurance will not be fined by the i.r.s. for not complying with the insurance mandate. but that is constant for the fact that they have no insurance and no reasonable way of achieving that. because after all, the cost for insurance is going to go significantly increase under the affordable care act. there is a 21-page application for exchange and americans who feel they should be covered under the medicaid expansion, 21-page application is pretty

significant. it does ask some questions that you have to ask yourself, are they germane to someone who is applying for health insurance. but nevertheless, the application is out there and in the public domain, albeit, it is a draft. i hope the department of health and human services will refine that. but most i know will not spend a lot of time filling out a 21-page application. we were told in the run-up to the passage of this law that it would take -- it would, in fact, pay money, pay down the deficit. it was $142 billion over 10 years and supposed to reduce the deficit. does anybody really believe that anymore? of course not. and the further evaluation of the costs and the expensive costs that are going to occur under the affordable care act,

probably an additional 1.5 trillion as to what this will add to the deficit over the next 10 years and this is just for the subsidies and the exchanges and for the medicaid expansion alone. now, why does that matter? well, mr. speaker, it matters because in just a few short weeks, the statutory borrowing authority of the united states will be met or exceeded. and this congress, this house will once again be involved in another discussion about raising the debt limit. and in july of 2011, we had this discussion, it was attracting a lot of attention, a lot of publicity. we are going to have that same fight occur again. a lot of people are concerned about the sequester. they say we wish the sequester never happened. the sequester is what the president proposed to get the

expansion of the debt limit to a point where he would not have to deal with it until afflecks day, 2012. he said it was good and will allow us to get past this point and move on, but people are dealing with the aftermath, woy ask you, what is the sequester going to look like in the summer of 2013, because the debt limit will not just be expanded to cover the obligations, there is going to have to be some spending discipline along with that. i don't know what those will be and not privy of those discussions. but will all the money that is promised to be there for the medicaid expansion for the subsidies in the exchange, will it be there or will it be exposed to some type of sequester type device? i don't know the answer to that question, but those are questions which this house will have to deal in literally a few

weeks time. . just this year, naive new -- five new taxes, significant taxes that have occurred as a result of the affordable care act. there's a payroll tax that has increased almost 1%. .9%. people who are in over -- for people earning over $200,000 a year or joint filers over $250,000 a year. many people would say, we knew medicare was getting into trouble. maybe it's a good thing that that payroll tax for medicare has gone up. well, it might be, except the money doesn't stay in the medicare trust fund. it's collected and then it immediately goes into the general revenue in order to pay for or offset the cost of the subsidies that are going to exist in the insurance exchange. one of the more onerous taxes that was begun on january 1, of course, was a 2.4% gross receipts tax on medical

devices. class two and class three medical devices, as defined by the food and drug administration, are now subject to a 2.4% gross receipts tax. that's not a tax on profits. that's a tax on gross sales. and it is significant, sure, there are some big companies that, they'll make do. but really it's the small entrepreneur who is developing medical devices, and this is happening all the time, those individuals are the ones who are going to be particularly hard-hit and you can imagine it may reduce some of that entrepreneurial activity or send it overseas. we already have a food and drug administration that sometimes is difficult to deal with, as far as getting things approved. europe and central asia are not so difficult to deal with and, hey, by the way, there's not that gross receipts tax, perhaps we ought to move our manufacturing somewhere else and of course the jobs go with the manufacturing. there's been a change in what

are called flexible spending accounts. flexible spending accounts are that money which you're able to designate at the beginning of every calendar year and you can can be tax dollars that spent for recurrent medical expenses. this now has been capped at $2,500 a year. the amount was much higher than that previously. but under the affordable care act, in order to offset some of the additional costs of the affordable care act, they said, well, we're going to cap those flexible spending account contributions to $2,500. that started this year. so, if you've got a recurring medical expense that occurs every year, and, you know, think about someone with a family member who has a chronic medical condition or a family with a special needs child where they wanted to be able to set some dollars aside at the beginning of the year, not have them taxed, so that they could pay for whatever it was that was going to be required. they are now capped at a

$2,500. and that amount is very quickly -- people are going to very quickly find that that amount is exceeded and that they have been caught in this so-called f.s.a. trap or flexible spending account trap. for people who deduct medical expenses from their income tax, currently as you know, or the last tax year, for which we all just prepared our taxes and filed them this evening, there was a 7.5% exclusion from your adjustmented -- your adjusted gross income. that is, until your medical expenses equaled 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, didn't get to deduct medical expenses from your tax. that amount has actually increased to 10% for next year. so people who were accustomed to -- people with a lot of medical expenses who were accustomed to keeping up with those receipts and then being able to deduct those medical expenses as they exceeded 7.5%

of their adjusted gross income, they're now not going to be able to deduct those expenses until after 10% of their adjusted gross income. so who have we punished here? we have punished the families with special needs children, we have punished people with chronic medical conditions, we've basically gone after the sickest americans to say, you're going to pay a little bit more for what everyone else is going to receive in the affordable care act. there is going to be a tax on insurance companies -- i'm sorry, a tax on insurance policies that people will have to pay. this will go into a couple of different accounts, a couple of different funds, but the bottom line is, it costs more every year to buy your insurance. and then, beginning in 2018, the so-called tax on cadillac insurance plans kicks in. and who's this going to affect? it will affect higher income earners who have a generous insurance policy, but it also

affects union members whose insurance policies were part of their collective bargaining agreements over time, and those policies which now are going to be judged to be cadillac plans, will actually be taxed at a much higher rate starting in 2018. there was supposed to be an exchange set up for small business. it was called the shop exchange. small business health policies. 29 times there were deadlines that was missed in setting up those exchanges. and now, just in the past couple of weeks, department of health and human services said, it's pretty tough, pretty complicated, we don't know if we can do it or not but we're giving ourselves another year. this won't happen until 2015. i think this is one of the things that really caused some consternation over in the senate because in the other body, this was one of the things that they -- one of the deals that they made in order to get the affordable care act passed. in order to get it to the floor

of the senate in the fall of 2009. it is instructive for people to remember how this thing came to be in the fist place. now, in the summer -- first place. now, in the summer of 2009, the committees of jurisdiction here on the house, ways and means, energy and commerce, education and labor, all debated a version of the house health care reform bill. make no mistake about it, i think it was a crumby bill. h.r. 3200 was the number, it did go through the committee process, it was amended several times in the various house committees. from there it went to the speaker's desk where it was all kind of consolidated, all three committee products were kind of melded into one. and then it came to the floor of the house, doubled in size during that two or three-month hayities, and was passed by the house of representatives in the fall, in november of 2009. not -- well, one republican

vote and the rest carried by democrats, 35 democrats voted against it because of some of the problems contained within that legislation. but, the important thing is, as bad as i think it is, it did go through the regular house process, we may have been curtailed in the number of amendments we could offer at committee, our time for debate in committee may have been limited, but nevertheless it did come through the committee process. not so in the senate. h.r. 3200 has never been seen or heard from again. passed the house, went over to the senate to await activity, and there it went. up into the either somewhere, no one -- ether somewhere, no one really know what is happened to it. there's a health care law that was signed by the president in march of 2010 houfment did the health care law come into being? the house had passed another bill in july of 2009, it was h.r. 3590, dealt with housing. i think it passed the house with very few negative votes. but it was a housing bill. went over to the senate to await further activity.

and that's the bill that was picked up by senate leadership, that was brought to the floor of the senate and amended. the amendment read, strike all after the enacting clause and insert -- striking of course the language for the housing bill which was the base bill and inserting health care language and that was the bill that the senate passed late on christmas eve in 2009, right ahead of a big snowstorm that was coming to town and all the senators wanted to get out. so they passed this bill, 60 votes. not a single republican vote. passed with the entirely democratic votes. now, under normal circumstances, h.r. 3590 which is now the senate health care bill, and h.r. 3200, which was the house bill, would have gone to a conference committee. they'd have worked the rough edges out, they would have worked the differences out between the two bills and a conference report would have come back to both houses of congress, the house and the senate, and that would have been voted on up or down.

the problem was that, remember, it took 60 votes to pass it on the senate side. shortly after h.r. 3590 passed on the senate side, a democratic seat was lost, scott brown was elected from massachusetts, and as a consequence, that 60th vote was no longer available and the -- for the democratic leadership of the senate. so what are they going to do? they said that the house will just simply to have to pass h.r. 3590. after all, it was a house bill. that was passed already by the house in july of 2009, amended by the senate to become health care bill, all that is required for it to become law is for the house to take a vote. well, the house now -- will the house now concur with the amendment? so many as are in favor say aye. if that is a simple majority, 218 votes, here in the house of representatives, if that is a simple majority then that's the end of the discussion. the bill goes down the street

to the white house for a signing ceremony and that's exactly what happened. now, it took three months to accomplish that because no one here in the house thought h.r. 3590 was a very good legislative product. in fact, let's be honest, mr. speaker, it was a rough draft that had been produced by the senate finance committee, the staff of the senate finance committee, as a vehicle to get the senate to conference with the house. they never expected for this thing to be signed into law. it was a vehicle to get to a conference to then sit down with the house and, let's work out these differences between the two of us and then we'll get a committee -- a conference committee product to come to the floor. but it didn't work out. as a consequence, the bill that was signed into law was one that was never intended to become law. it was a product produced by the staff of the senate finance committee, as a vehicle to get them out of town before christmas eve, so that they could then get to the

conference committee where the real work, the real work of writing this health care law would occur. the american people were cheated by this process, mr. speaker. and now we're left to deal with the consequences. and what are the consequences? 500,000 children according to the to a newspaper being taken off their employer-sponsored insurance. people in the pre-existing program who had been waiting patiently for their turn are now told, we're sorry, it's full up. no more space. you can't come in. it didn't have to be this way. there were good ideas on both sides that could have been take noon account. one of the fundamental questions i think we have to ask ourselves over and over again is, where were the country's governors when this bill was actually writen? of course it was written by the senate finance committee staff so the governors were nowhere in the room. a lot of the deals that was struck between some of the special interest groups and the white house were all done down at the white house in july of

2009. the nation's governors weren't involved in that. why were the nation's governors so reluctant to accept the exchanges, the medicaid exchanges? well, the answer, mr. speaker, is because they were dealt out of the process and then the rulemaking that started happening after the law was signed began to scare them, but a lot of the rules were held until after election day. the rule governing essential health benefits, what governor in their right mite mind is going to sign onto an exchange program where they don't even know what they're going to be required to cover? they don't know how much money is going to cost them. so there's no surprise that 26 states said no dice to the exchange, an additional six states said maybe we'll do a partnership but you go ahead and set the program up through the federal level first. and as a consequence, the office of personnel management is nowed with setting up exchanges -- is now required with setting up exchanges with 26 states plus six that might want partnerships and that's a

tall order. that's why gary cohen said, i'm not sure we're going to need a contingency program but we won't know until we get there. i will submit there is going to be a need for a contingency plan. the sooner that the agencies admit that to the appropriate committees and the house and senate, the sooner they can begin to work on a solution for a problem. because, mr. speaker, let's face it. january 1 of 2014, there's going to be an emergency room, there's going to be an operating room, there's going to be a delivery room where a patient and doctor are going to come into contact with each other and they don't need the uncertainty of what this legislation has dealt them. so, i thank the speaker for the time this evening. i see the gentleman from iowa is here. mr. speaker, is it appropriate for me to yield back or yield to the gentleman? i will then yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013,