[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 50 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2004-H2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2013
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 249) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that
persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for
Federal employment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 249
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Tax
Accountability Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT
TAX DEBTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER VIII--INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT
TAX DEBTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
``Sec. 7381. Definitions
``For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) the term `seriously delinquent tax debt' means an
outstanding debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
which a notice of lien has been filed in public records
pursuant to section 6323 of such Code, except that such term
does not include--
``(A) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant
to an agreement under section 6159 or section 7122 of such
Code;
``(B) a debt with respect to which a collection due process
hearing under section 6330 of such Code, or relief under
subsection (a), (b), or (f) of section 6015 of such Code, is
requested or pending;
``(C) a debt with respect to which a levy has been issued
under section 6331 of such Code (or, in the case of an
applicant for employment, a debt with respect to which the
applicant agrees to be subject to a levy issued under such
section); and
``(D) a debt with respect to which relief under section
6343(a)(1)(D) of such Code is granted;
``(2) the term `employee' means an employee in or under an
agency, including an individual described in sections 2104(b)
and 2105(e); and
``(3) the term `agency' means--
``(A) an Executive agency;
``(B) the United States Postal Service;
``(C) the Postal Regulatory Commission; and
``(D) an employing authority in the legislative branch.
``Sec. 7382. Ineligibility for employment
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), any person
who has a seriously delinquent tax debt shall be ineligible
to be appointed or to continue serving as an employee.
``(b) Disclosure Requirement.--The head of each agency
shall take appropriate measures to ensure that each person
applying for employment with such agency shall be required to
submit (as part of the application for employment)
certification that such person does not have any seriously
delinquent tax debt.
``(c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management, in
consultation with the Internal Revenue Service, shall, for
purposes of carrying out this section with respect to the
executive branch, promulgate any regulations which the Office
considers necessary, except that such regulations shall
provide for the following:
``(1) All due process rights, afforded by chapter 75 and
any other provision of law, shall apply with respect to a
determination under this section that an applicant is
ineligible to be appointed or that an employee is ineligible
to continue serving.
``(2) Before any such determination is given effect with
respect to an individual, the individual shall be afforded
180 days to demonstrate that such individual's debt is one
described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section
7381(a)(1).
``(3) An employee may continue to serve, in a situation
involving financial hardship, if the continued service of
such employee is in the best interests of the United States,
as determined on a case-by-case basis.
``(d) Reports to Congress.--The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall report annually to Congress on the
number of exemptions made pursuant to subsection (c)(3).
``Sec. 7383. Review of public records
``(a) In General.--Each agency shall provide for such
reviews of public records as the head of such agency
considers appropriate to determine if a notice of lien (as
described in section 7381(1)) has been filed with respect to
an employee of or an applicant for employment with such
agency.
``(b) Additional Requests.--If a notice of lien is
discovered under subsection (a) with respect to an employee
or applicant for employment, the agency may--
``(1) request that the employee or applicant execute and
submit a form authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to
disclose to the head of the agency information limited to
describing whether the employee or applicant has a seriously
delinquent tax debt; and
``(2) contact the Secretary of the Treasury to request tax
information limited to describing whether the employee or
applicant has a seriously delinquent tax debt.
``(c) Authorization Form.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to all agencies a standard form for the
authorization described in subsection (b)(1).
``(d) Negative Consideration.--The head of an agency, in
considering an individual's application for employment or in
making an employee appraisal or evaluation, shall give
negative consideration to a refusal or failure to comply with
a request under subsection (b)(1).
``Sec. 7384. Confidentiality
``Neither the head nor any other employee of an agency
may--
``(1) use any information furnished under the provisions of
this subchapter for any purpose other than the administration
of this subchapter;
``(2) make any publication whereby the information
furnished by or with respect to
[[Page H2005]]
any particular individual under this subchapter can be
identified; or
``(3) permit anyone who is not an employee of such agency
to examine or otherwise have access to any such
information.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 73 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SUBCHAPTER VIII--INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT
TAX DEBTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
``7381. Definitions.
``7382. Ineligibility for employment.
``7383. Review of public records.
``7384. Confidentiality.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
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.
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would 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 bringing it
early in the Congress and, I believe, all these bills on a bipartisan
basis, we make it clear that we want to hold ourselves to the standard
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 their
obligations as citizens, including all financial obligations,
especially those to the Federal, State, and local taxes that are
imposed by law, how can somebody who in fact hasn't done it and has
reached a point of garnishment, reached a point at which they are
unwilling to pay their just taxes, have no appeals or any pending, how
can they in fact continue to expect to be Federal employees? The truth
is these employees have given up any question about their ethics by
avoiding it.
Before going further, I would like to have the Speaker take note that
in fact for us, as Federal employees, our withholding is already taken
out of our taxes. So to become seriously in arrears in our taxes, for
the most part, has to do with activities outside our role. We're well
insured for health care. Our taxes have already been withheld. So
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 by saying this bill has passed before and has
been well thought out. We in fact sent a letter to IRS asking them for
a timely response. And to my dismay, they were not interested enough 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.
{time} 1750
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As one who represents many Federal employees, with the Social
Security Administration smack dab in the middle of my district, with
many of my constituents getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning,
catching the train over here from Howard County and Baltimore County to
work for the Federal Government, a group of people, many of whom are
being subjected now to furloughs, have been subjected to pay freezes,
in some instances have been placed in a position where they have to pay
more toward 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 that Federal employees, like all Americans, should pay
their taxes, and I don't think that 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 than half that of the general public. In
2011, the tax delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.
In the same year, the tax delinquency rate for Federal workers was only
3.62 percent. Now, let me make it clear: I would suggest that it would
be best--and wonderful--if that percentage was zero, but it's not. But
again, the general delinquency rate, 8.2 percent; Federal workers, 3.62
percent.
The legislation is unnecessary because the IRS and other executive
agencies already have procedures in place to recover back taxes from
Federal employees. Through the Federal Payment and Levy Program, the
IRS can impose a continuous levy on Federal salaries and annuities up
to 15 percent until the debt is paid. Agencies also have the authority
to take disciplinary action against employees for delinquent tax debts,
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 another note, I just left, about 3 hours ago, a job fair that I
sponsored in my district where 9,000 unemployed people showed up. In
talking to some of the various agencies, they said, Congressman
Cummings, we're glad that the State of Maryland is now dealing with
child support issues a little bit differently because we used to take
everybody's license. We would make it almost impossible for them to
make money so that they could pay the child support. They said now
we're beginning to turn some of those laws around because, again, we
want to be effective and efficient in collecting the money. Here, if a
person has no job, how are they going to pay their taxes?
I am also concerned that this legislation is being rushed to the
floor today to apparently make a political point. During committee
debate over the legislation, questions were raised. To his credit, the
chairman agreed that we would try to get some responses from the IRS
about the rules and procedures regarding debt collection, options for
resolving delinquencies, payment options, tax delinquencies of IRS
employees, and other issues. The chairman promised to obtain the
answers to these questions from the IRS and to work with Democrats
before the bill was brought to the floor.
Now, I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS failed to do what they
were supposed to do; they did not give us the information. But there
was a reason that we wanted that information. We wanted the information
so that we could base our decisions on sound facts. If 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. We don't have that information, and that is
unfortunate. Hopefully, at some point, we will get it from the IRS.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the chairman. He did his part. He
submitted his letter, I know he did, but we still have not heard from
[[Page H2006]]
the IRS. So on April 4, 2013, I joined with Chairman Issa in sending
that letter to the IRS, requesting specific information that the
committee members agreed was necessary to fairly and fully evaluate the
need for this legislation.
Again, without this information, it is unclear whether various
scenarios under which taxpayer disputes of 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 U.S. Tax
Court, or hearings under the IRS' Collection Appeals Program would
trigger an exemption.
Contrary to the chairman's assurances, the Republican leadership 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, there is something
that the chairman said that I think we need to be clear on. I want to
see, again, a situation where everybody pays every dime that they are
supposed to pay, but I 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, again, we're talking about the Federal
employee, and then we're talking about everybody else.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. And I would take note
that this afternoon the IRS did offer to speak to us over the phone but
had no answers in writing, which continues to befuddle me a little bit
that we can't get answers. I will continue to work with the ranking
member to get those answers.
At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank Chairman Issa, Speaker Boehner, and Leader
Cantor for their support in allowing us to bring this piece of
legislation, a piece of legislation that has come before this body
before. This is not a new topic. This is not something that just sprung
up with us in the last 10 days here.
Mr. Speaker, on tax day, 2013, I want to impress upon my colleagues
that Federal employees who consciously ignore the channels and
processes in place to fulfill their tax obligations must be held
accountable. The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act 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 percent of our Federal employees do
the right thing and they do it on time. But, unfortunately, there are a
few bad apples out there. There are a few people out there that,
despite all the processes, all the appeals, all the things out there,
Mr. Speaker, they still choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
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 IRS data is available--
they tell us that 107,658 civilian Federal employees owed more than $1
billion. Now, the statistics say they have a greater compliance than
the rest of the public. But let's remember, when you're unemployed,
you're probably going to have a hard time complying. Employment for
those that are Federal workers is 100 percent. 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're 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 seriously delinquent tax debts are
ineligible for Federal civilian employment in the executive and
legislative branch, including congressional staff. ``Seriously tax
delinquent'' is defined as an outstanding Federal tax debt for which a
notice of lien has been publicly filed.
{time} 1800
And there are exemptions. If you're being paid in accordance with an
installment agreement, perhaps you're having your wages garnished, you
have an offer of compromise, or wage garnishment, you're exempted; it's
not going to affect you.
The IRS has already told us on the record when they testified in a
hearing that the overwhelming majority of the 107,000 people fall
within that category. They testified to the body in the last Congress
that roughly 12 percent of the 100,000 people would fall into this
category that we're here talking about today. We've had a hearing about
this. We did ask the IRS about this.
I also want to note, Mr. Speaker, on page 4 of the legislation at
(c)(3):
An employee may continue to serve, in a situation involving
financial hardship, if the continued service of such employee
is in the best interests of the United States, as determined
on a case-by-case basis.
There's an opportunity to have the person who's in charge to make a
determination: Do you know what? I have looked at this, and I grant
this person an exemption.
But, as I did when I spoke to a group of HR professionals who work
within the Federal Government, I told them about this and said, You
need some tools to take care of the bad apples. I could see every one
of their heads shaking, yes, please, give us this tool.
The bill requires individuals applying for Federal jobs to certify
they are not seriously tax delinquent. Agencies will also conduct
periodic reviews of public records for tax liens. Individuals with
serious delinquent tax debt may avail themselves to existing due
process rights, including going before the Merit Systems Protection
Board.
In fact, in the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch, who's as
passionate on this issue as you can possibly find, offered some
amendments. And let me read from the record when we accepted the
amendment offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts:
Mr. Lynch. With that refinement here, a friendly amendment,
I certainly would vote for the bill if the amendment were
included.
The amendment was included. We did this in a bipartisan way. That's
why it sailed through the House of Representatives last time and why it
should sail through again.
In addition, individuals have 6 months to demonstrate that their tax
debt is not seriously delinquent--something that Mr. Lynch asked for,
something we agreed with, something that we move forward with.
For many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this
legislation should sound familiar because we did pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Actually, at this time, what I would like to do is
yield back and respond based on the other comments.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friends, the
chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee, that we were
doing so well in the last few bills showing how bipartisan our
committees could be. And I mean that sincerely, because the committee
has been working in a very bipartisan way, particularly this year.
As I indicated in my prior remarks, there is not perfect symmetry
between employees and contractors. Here is one of the examples where we
do not have that symmetry.
Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in ``lead by example.'' I think
that applies to Members of Congress, and I believe the 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 a unique workforce.
Here is a workforce 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 3rd year of a freeze
and a sequester on top of it.
Why would we pick them out for any other purpose except a symbolic
purpose, which is what I see here? It's not
[[Page H2007]]
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
out a release myself today on taxation without representation.
But here we have the best workforce in the United States, the most
specialized, and the workforce 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 a lien which has been publicly filed.'' Mr. Speaker, a
notice of lien is a claim by the claimant, in this case, the United
States. The answer may come, of course, 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 at a time when Americans,
including Federal employees, have had the worst hardships since the
Great Depression, including homes under water and all the rest of it.
It's just not necessary. If they have the best tax record in the United
States, why then would they be picked out?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize that the IRS already
has special procedures to recover taxes from its own employees, and I
commend the IRS for that, including, by the way, being able to garnish
their wages up to 15 percent and even to take disciplinary actions. Why
would we need anything further, particularly at this moment in time,
against our Federal employees who have endured so much?
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I join with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia in
applauding what the IRS has done. The IRS effectively gave itself the
rules that Mr. Chaffetz would like to have all Federal civilian workers
living under.
The IRS has a delinquency rate now of 1 percent. So if you take a
fraction of that 1 percent that could possibly be out of compliance for
a short period of time, and that's what happens. You've lowered the
overall rate from, for example, the Government Printing Office, 7.6
percent; the 316,000 people at the Department of Veterans Affairs,
13,000 of them, or 4.3 percent, are seriously in arrears.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady is absolutely right: the IRS did the
right thing, and it worked. You've got a compliance rate down to 1
percent failure, or 99 percent positive compliance rate.
For all the Federal workers who are listening carefully because this
could affect them, they're looking to their left and their right
endlessly wondering who these deadbeats are because, in all cases, it's
below 10 percent, and at the IRS at 1 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the case for this legislation is made by the IRS's
success, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I adopt the remarks that were made by Ms. Norton. The
delinquency rate of Federal employees is far below what it is for other
employees on a general level throughout this country. I adopt the
gentlelady's remarks that, yes, this is April 15, and my own staff has
said, oh, I had to pay this, that, or the other.
The implication here 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're doing. You're having to pay your taxes
today before those deadbeat Federal employees. That's the message here.
Now, if this were a problem that you really wanted to deal with, it
wouldn't have to be April 15. It could have been February 15 or it
could be June 15. But, no, that's not the message here.
{time} 1810
The message is that somehow Federal employees need to be targeted. I
understand they work for us, and so they're easy to get at. And we are
getting at them almost every week. We're furloughing them. We're
suggesting they pay more, that they're not paying enough for
retirement. We are suggesting that somehow they're less than stellar
employees.
But before I conclude, let me take a second look at this.
We had a tragic event happen in Boston today, and the President was
quick to call Governor Deval Patrick and say we're going to send some
Federal employees from the FBI, the ATF, and other agencies to make
sure that we look at this and protect America.
We extend our sympathies, of course, to all the victims and their
families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HOYER. We express our sympathies to all of them, and we recognize
that they have some employees in Boston and around this country at the
municipal and State level, and, yes, at the Federal level, who are
going to try to respond and make sure America is safe.
Let's send a message to those Federal employees, because they're our
employees, that we respect them, their contribution. Let us not bring a
bill to the floor--by the way, the gentleman is correct that it passed
here not with my vote last year, because I thought it was a message
that was incorrect. I thought that there were processes in place today
which allow us to act against those, yes, who are tax delinquents. But
very frankly, this is not a discussion today about huge tax
delinquents, huge tax frauds, people who are not paying taxes to this
country in which they're being so successful.
So, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we send our regrets to those who have
been the subject of a terrorist act, whether it was a domestic
terrorist, a foreign terrorist, but a terrorist act this day.
Secondly, we say to those Federal employees who time after time, week
after week, month after month are being disparaged by their board of
directors, that we understand the quality of their service and
contribution. 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 is not the
way to do it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to do too much responding to
something that asks why something was brought on April 15, except to
say that the minority was very happy to have us bring on April 15
something to hold contractors responsible on tax day for taxes, and we
thought appropriate that both should be about this tax day in which 99
percent of Americans have paid all their taxes, whether they like to or
not, and a small percentage have not.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, DC, can we say that this is not a
serious issue. We're talking about 107,000 people and a billion dollars
in uncollected taxes when the very Americans that are paying their
paychecks are writing out their checks.
I would also look at the companion piece of legislation, which is $5
billion, that deals with the contractors. What we're saying to the
employees of the Federal Government--the men and women who are
patriotic, who are doing their job; they're doing the right thing; they
work hard; they love this country; they're the first ones 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, there is somebody that
works in that department, there is somebody that works in that agency
who doesn't play by the rules like everybody else does. They give this
country and they give their counterparts and their employees a bad
name. We're going to stand up for them by giving that head of that
department in the agency the opportunity to fire somebody if they don't
comply.
Pay your Federal taxes, you're in good shape; don't pay your Federal
taxes, don't put yourself in place, then we're going to give you an
opportunity to be let go.
[[Page H2008]]
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249, the
Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2013.
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 because of a tax lien. On top
of this, common sense will tell you it's a very difficult thing to
collect taxes or any debt from somebody who doesn't have a job.
The IRS already has procedures in place to collect back taxes from
Federal employees. The Federal Payment Levy Program allows the IRS to
impose a continuous levy on Federal, and only Federal, employees up to
15 percent. This means Federal employees already are held to a higher
standard and the IRS already has additional weapons in its arsenal,
making the bill before us an over-the-top and punitive measure.
It's a solution without a real problem and a solution that will only
make it harder to actually 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 3 years.
These are people for whom many are receiving furlough notices even as
we speak. These are people that now we're attacking in a new and better
way.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest at some point you wonder how we're supposed to
attract talented and capable individuals to come to work for us when we
treat them like this.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to harken back to the comments of
President Obama on January 20, 2010.
Make no mistake; the President was talking about delinquent
contractors, not specifically about Federal workers. But I want you, as
you listen to the President, in his own words, to wonder why should--
these, too, are families. Contractors are families; they're Americans;
they're people. Some of them are bad apples. Most of them do a good
job.
But listen to the President as he's talking about contractors, and
say: Should the same be true for Federal workers?
Quote, from President Obama:
All across this country, there are people who meet their
obligation each and every day. You do your jobs; you support
your families; you pay taxes you owe because it's a
fundamental responsibility of citizenship. And yet, somehow,
it's become standard practice in Washington to give contracts
to companies that don't pay their taxes.
Later on, the President said:
The status quo, then, is inefficiency, and it's wasteful by
the larger and more fundamental point that it is wrong. It is
simply wrong for companies to take taxpayer dollars and not
be taxpayers themselves. So 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
your own businesses.
The same should be true for Federal workers. And when those Federal
workers are giving out those 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 that same high standard. We're not having a
separate standard for contractors and for you. Those of us that do work
for the Federal Government are honest in our dealings. We pay our
taxes. You know what? If we don't around here, they eventually fire us.
That seems to me to be common sense and the right approach.
{time} 1820
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249.
This bill would bar individuals who work for the Federal Government
and who have a tax lien from being employed by the Federal Government.
I agree with Congressman Chaffetz and the supporters of this bill that
all citizens, including our Federal employees, should pay their taxes.
However, this bill is far more focused on attacking Federal employees
than on actually resolving problems. This bill, H.R. 249, is a
political document, not a policy solution.
The IRS says that the tax delinquency rate for our Federal employees
is half that of the average American taxpayer. This legislation is the
wrong approach and is destined to be grossly ineffective because it
makes collecting outstanding taxes difficult--by firing the very people
we'd like to pay their taxes. As a former business owner myself, in
putting people into homes, I used to find out time after time that the
IRS would violate their agreement. It's the IRS that violates the
agreement sometimes when somebody says, I'll pay it on a regular basis,
and the IRS changes that agreement without notice. That will and does
happen to employees all the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
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 workforce, one in which 96-point-some
percent do pay their taxes, and of the remaining ones who do not, the
vast majority has 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 percent of the homes get
robbed in a given year, but the police still responded and still said,
I'll do something about your home being burglarized.
All we're saying here is: let's stop talking about the 97 percent who
do the right thing, and let's deal with those who do not in a way that
encourages them, like the IRS has, to start doing the right thing and
lower that failure rate to 1 percent or less.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the ranking member.
Let me just be very specific. Mr. Chaffetz, at one point, said we
have a few bad apples, and the chairman suggested, Well, who are these
deadbeats? Let's talk about who these deadbeats really are. $3.5
billion--54 percent of that $3.5 billion is attributed to military,
active military, military Reserves, and retired military.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think maybe we should rethink this
because the truth of the matter is 54 percent have either been in the
military or active military. Furthermore, 46 percent of those
``deadbeats'' are civilian Federal employees retired and military
Federal employees retired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 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
pertains to civilian personnel. It does not affect uniformed military
personnel. Uniformed military personnel can be court-martialed for not
living up to their financial obligations. That is certainly more than
we are considering here.
The fact is the numbers we presented, the numbers quoted here,
represent civilian workers. Some of those civilian workers do also
serve in the Reserves, and some of them are also retired individuals,
but let's understand this is not about the men and women deployed in
uniform. This is, in fact, about civilian workers who may have
supplemental incomes from retirement, who may, in fact, also be
Reserves. This is all about people who receive often more than $100,000
a year and have not made arrangements to catch up on taxes that are
seriously in arrears by up to $10,000 or more.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2009]]
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield that 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Baltimore.
The basic problem with this bill is that it claims to fix a problem
that doesn't exist. The fact is that Federal employees have a
delinquency rate that is less than half of what it is for the average
American taxpayer. The fact is that there already exist programs to
garnish wages and annuity income for delinquent filers. The fact is
that agencies can already take disciplinary action against employees
who have tax debt, including that of termination.
So why are we doing this--to punish people because they chose public
service?
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 by suggesting that there is some
kind of endemic problem when there isn't. You've already docked the
Federal workforce with up to 14 unpaid furlough days. You've cut more
than $100 billion from their pensions and pay. You've just sequestered
$600 million from the IRS.
Federal employees work for our constituents, and they work for us.
Their jobs are to carry out the laws that we make. The majority of this
House apparently ran for office on the claim that the Federal
Government isn't working, and now that they've been elected they're
trying to prove it--by threatening and accusing and, thus, demoralizing
the dedicated public servants who have fought our wars, built our roads
and bridges, enforced our laws, invented the technology that powers our
economy, and researched the treatments that heal and save our loved
ones. And all this Congress can do is to threaten them with bills like
this.
This is not a fair bill, and thus I urge a ``no'' vote on it.
Mr. ISSA. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. This bill doesn't threaten the Federal employees. It
only threatens the Federal employees who don't pay their Federal taxes.
You pay your taxes because you get your income from the taxpayers. It
doesn't affect you.
What I hear continually, Mr. Speaker, is, Oh, no problem here. Don't
worry about it.
It's $1 billion in uncollected taxes. For far too long, this Congress
has ignored this. They keep giving contractors contracts up to the tune
of $5 billion a year. I introduced that bill as well.
So to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is unfair, it's
unwarranted, it's going to harm Federal employees---it's going to
protect Federal employees, because the ones who are doing the right
job, that are patriotic, are protected under this bill. Only those who
thumb their noses and won't pay their taxes are the ones who should be
scared of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 15 seconds.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. The problem with this bill is that it singles out Federal
employees by threatening and accusing them, suggesting that there is an
endemic problem within the Federal Government, and there isn't.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I am more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah
if I have the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. There are 107,000 people who haven't paid about $1
billion in taxes. To suggest there isn't a problem is, I think,
factually without merit.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close on a little bit quieter note than
the debate. The debate was, rightfully so, heated, and it was heated
because, in fact, we are making an important symbolic statement in this
legislation.
$1 billion is a lot of money to the taxpayers listening, but the
principle here is extremely important. It's a principle that shows
that, when the IRS changed their rules, they didn't fire very many
people. I'm sure, in fact, what they got was compliance, far greater
compliance, but let's go through a few things because the gentlelady,
my colleague and friend from California (Ms. Speier), used a larger
number, and the larger numbers, in fact, are worth using in closing.
{time} 1830
We've been talking, up until now, about $3 billion, $2.976 billion,
that in fact is about the civilian employees of the Federal Government.
They have a delinquency rate of approximately 3.62 percent. She
mentioned other individuals, and I want to mention in closing their
delinquency rate:
Civilian retired: understand, these are not individuals you can fire.
They're retired, but their delinquency is 2.5 percent.
Military active duty: these are the men and women who have a
different set of rules. They can be court-martialed if they don't live
up to their obligations, 2 percent. Remember, that 2 percent includes
all those who may eventually comply.
Military Reserve and Guard: these are the men and women who give up
their day jobs, often taking a huge pay cut in doing so, often
unanticipated, 2.4 percent.
Military retired, 4.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, I can't account for why,
when military people retire, they find themselves seriously in arrears
in taxes. But what I can say is when we look at 1 percent at the IRS,
and 2 percent for those men and women getting a private's pay or a
corporal's pay, they manage to keep their taxes straight.
The Federal workforce has a high compliance rate, as has been said
repeatedly by my colleagues. Their compliance rate is nearly twice the
rate of the public as a whole. Of course, the public as a whole
includes over 7 percent unemployed, and it includes all kinds of other
characteristics that lead to people being in default.
What we're saying here today is the IRS made a decision to have a
compliance standard that has dramatically reduced failure to comply,
and has put us in a situation where people of the IRS can say proudly:
We pay our taxes. We pay our taxes at a 99 percent 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 workforce, 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 exactly right. I urge passage of the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that all Americans,
particularly Federal workers, should pay their taxes in full and on
time, period. Fortunately, according to the most recent tax compliance
statistics from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the vast majority
of Federal workers, more than 96 percent, pay their taxes in full and
on time.
This admirable compliance rate is especially impressive when
considering that the Nation's overall compliance rate is approximately
83 percent. Further, with an average delinquency rate for Federal
employees of 3.3 percent, compared to an average delinquency rate of
7.4 percent for all American taxpayers, it is clear that our dedicated
civil servants take their tax obligations seriously. In addition, for
the small minority of Federal employees who fall behind on their taxes,
the causes of financial hardship are not unique to Federal workers, but
similar to the challenges and circumstances facing many middle class
American families who find themselves temporarily unable to meet their
tax obligations as a result of life-changing hardships, such as a
divorce, serious illness, or a spouse losing a job.
Simply put, H.R. 249 is a solution in search of a problem.
The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate found that implementing
H.R. 249 will cost taxpayers $1 million in 2014 and about
[[Page H2010]]
$500,000 in subsequent years, since it will not enhance revenues.
Although it may seem counterintuitive that the so-called ``Federal
Employee Tax Accountability Act'' would increase the deficit, it is
logical when one considers current law. Presently, the law provides for
a hierarchy of penalties based on the seriousness and willfulness of
the offense related to improperly filing a tax return, and it provides
IRS the authority to garnish wages to recoup owed taxes from employees.
H.R. 249 would replace this system with an inflexible mandate to fire
any Federal employee with an outstanding tax debt to the Federal
Government for which a public lien has been filed. If my Republican
colleagues are so concerned about tax delinquency, then why not use the
$1 million cost of this legislation to hire additional IRS enforcement
agents to chip away at our Nation's net tax gap of approximately $385
billion?
We recently held a hearing where the head of the U.S. Government
Accountability Office stated that the tax gap is the single largest
item we can address to achieve savings. Could it be that actually
recognizing such valuable work does not fit neatly with their negative
narrative of the Federal workforce? Spending more than $1 million to
implement H.R. 249, which only targets our country's civil servants and
does nothing to address our Nation's $385 billion tax gap, is neither a
prudent nor wise policy response. I urge all Members to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249, the
misleadingly named Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. This bill
unfairly singles out federal employees for punishment instead of
applying a uniform set of rules to individuals who may be delinquent on
their taxes.
All Americans should pay their taxes, and those who fail to do so
should be penalized. But this bill denies public workers the full
complement of due process rights that would be available to any other
American under the same circumstances. In effect, this bill would
require the firing of any public employee even if they are legitimately
contesting their delinquency through the established process. There are
laws and regulations on the books that address how tax delinquency
should be handled and how public employees who are delinquent on their
payments should be disciplined. By by-passing those procedures, this
measure unfairly targets public employees simply because they work for
the government.
Public servants work hard every day providing a wide array of public
services for Americans, from helping to nurse our wounded veterans, to
discovering cures and treatments for diseases that plague millions of
American families, to protecting our food supply.
The passage of this bill is the latest in a series of unfair
congressional attacks on public workers that has ranged from cutting
their pay to reducing their benefits. And this bill arrives just as
many of them face further pay cuts resulting from agency imposed
furloughs.
Federal workers do not deserve to be treated like this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 249.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________