Providing for Consideration of H.R. Taxpayer First Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 21st Century Irs Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5444 and H.R. 5445. I support the underlying bills, but the problem is these rules don't allow any amendments.
We suggest an open process. I offered three amendments myself to these bills. My colleague Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to improve the bill. Unfortunately, we have been denied a vote, and instead this body is having a debate on, frankly, issues, just like yesterday, there doesn't even need to be that much debate on. I would think these bills, like the one yesterday, could have been put on something called the suspension calendar, which means they are not too controversial.
Usually the reason we do a rule is we allow amendments. That is why we do that, and yet all the amendments that were offered were rejected. So we are kind of drawing out the time it takes to pass these bipartisan bills instead of spending the time on issues that the American public want us to address.
Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, are clamoring for debate around what is called an AUMF, an authorized use of military force, bill to address the authority of the President with regard to Syria, with regard to ISIS and other operations.
We are now 4 months into 2018. The House still has not considered a bill to protect our Dreamers, our young aspiring Americans.
So inaction, inaction, inaction. And even where we are moving forward with a bipartisan bill, we are shutting out ideas from Republicans and Democrats that could actually make the bill better.
I, as I mentioned, offered a couple of those to this bill, and the majority blocked those amendments on a party-line vote. One of my amendments would have provided clarity to consumers and the IRS around providing a window for immunity on filings for use of cryptocurrency, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Schweikert. Another amendment would have provided tax relief for kombucha manufacturers, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Tipton. Another would have eased tax burdens on small businesses in States that have legalized marijuana.
All three have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee could have granted the necessary waivers, as they do on many amendments when they choose to, and allowed them.
Mr. Sherman's amendment was actually germane to the underlying bill. There wouldn't have needed to be any additional waivers that were granted. We simply could have advanced it to the floor to debate.
So, again, these bills are largely noncontroversial. What is controversial is why won't the Republican leadership allow Democrats and Republicans to amend and improve these bills? And two, why we are wiling away our time on bills that we could have done Monday on a suspension voice vote instead of really working on a bipartisan Authorization for Use of Military Force or the other prescient issues our country faces?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on tax day, the White House made an announcement about President Trump's taxes, but it wasn't the announcement that Americans were waiting for.
Instead of releasing his returns, President Trump was actually just requesting an extension to file his 2017 income tax return, which still would not be made public if or when he files it. It is a good reminder that President Trump has broken with decades of tradition when, as a Presidential candidate, he did not disclose his tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, which would require Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask is the gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to defeat the previous question and call up a bill to increase transparency with regard to the President. We also have an opportunity to reject a rule that excludes good ideas, where Members of Congress, in good faith, offered amendments to improve the bill and they were denied.
Of course, the two underlying bills are fine bills. What is broken is the process, a process that doesn't allow a meaningful floor debate on improvements to a bill and a process that doesn't allow any floor time for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or addressing the needs of our Dreamers. Unfortunately, these bills are brought to the floor under a closed rule.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and the rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source