The gentleman is primarily concerned with records management at the IRS, which does not surprise us--the IRS again. However, this bill already contains a provision preventing the use of funds by the IRS to violate these very same sections of the code. In other words, the bill that we are debating today, the full bill, already accomplishes what the gentleman seeks to do. Every agency is already required to follow Federal records management law, so this amendment seems particularly unnecessary. I realize Members on the other side want to continue to issue press releases stating how tough they are on the IRS, but there is no need to restate current law. I think that this one is different in the sense that while other amendments that I may not approve of or support speak to an issue that hasn't been spoken to before or repeat something we have dealt with before, this one speaks to an issue that Mr. Crenshaw already took care of in the bill. That is my opposition to it, and that is why I think the amendment is unnecessary. I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from José E. Serrano
I don't, as you can see, have much to say on this because it is really an interesting situation. It is an amendment looking for a problem that doesn't exist. It is an amendment looking for the possibility that the President--there we go…
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the CFPB from implementing, administering, or enforcing any guidance related to indirect auto lending. This is meant as a shot across the bow to the CFPB…
With all due respect, and I am not answering the gentleman's question, my role is not to tell you what you should have put in the bill.
Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, there are other parts covered by the Bureau that have their own statute of limitations. That is why these questions are being asked. While the gentleman is correct that Dodd-Frank says 3 years, in other areas it…





