[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5212-H5214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP TARGETING OUR POLITICS IRS ACT
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2565) to provide for the termination of employment of
employees of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official
actions for political purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2565
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 ``Stop Targeting Our Politics
IRS Act'' or as the ``STOP IRS Act''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES.
Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is amended to
read as follows:
``(10) performing, delaying, or failing to perform (or
threatening to perform, delay, or fail to perform) any
official action (including any audit) with respect to a
taxpayer for purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit
or for a political purpose.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Renacci) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and add extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio.
There was no objection.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to urge approval of H.R. 2565, the Stop Targeting Our
Politics IRS Act.
Despite being introduced only 1 month ago, this bipartisan
legislation already has over 75 cosponsors, but also overwhelming
support from the American people. This support shows that the vast
majority of Members and Americans, regardless of their party
affiliation, believe the IRS should be above politics. This is not a
partisan issue. It is absolutely unacceptable for a government official
to consider the political leanings of any taxpayer when conducting
official business.
If it is determined that a Federal employer did, in fact, engage in
targeting, they should be relieved of their duties. It is that simple.
In fact, this is so commonsense, in 1998, Congress enacted the IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act by a vote of 402-8. That legislation
sought to bring accountability to the IRS by allowing for immediate
termination of IRS employees who engaged in the so-called ``10 Deadly
Sins'' against taxpayers.
A large percentage of the Members here in this Chamber today
supported those reforms back then. Unfortunately, while the legislation
covers many offenses, it did not include political targeting. I have no
doubt this was a simple oversight. I cannot imagine any Member would
support a process for removing an employee for bad behavior, but
somehow not consider political targeting to be bad enough. This is
exactly what my legislation would do. It would specifically spell out
that any IRS employee, regardless of political affiliation, who
targeted a taxpayer for political purposes could be immediately
relieved of their duties. This legislation does not change any of the
procedures for removing an IRS employee. It simply adds political
targeting to the list of 10 Deadly Sins already in existence. Any
statements to the contrary are simply not true.
Some have said this bill is not needed because the current
investigation is still ongoing. This legislation does not, in any way,
impact the current investigation. It simply says, regardless of the
current situation, if you work for the IRS, you cannot target taxpayers
for political purposes. There should be no controversy in that. There
is currently a process in place to remove bad actors. There is
currently a list of offenses that would subject an employee to that
process. All I want to do is add political targeting to the list of
fireable offenses.
Regardless of the outcome of this current investigation, the
reputation and credibility of the IRS has been badly damaged. The IRS
needs this legislation. The entire Federal Government needs this
legislation. And most importantly, the American people need this
legislation. They need to know that they will not be targeted by their
government for political purposes. They need to know that those who are
entrusted with the vast power of this Federal Government are going to
act in a responsible and professional manner, or be held accountable if
they do not.
I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me spend a few minutes, if I might, discussing the context of
this legislation and a bit of what's in it.
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
enacted a list of 10 ``acts or omissions''
[[Page H5213]]
for which IRS employees face mandatory firing. This bill would amend
the 10th act or omission to expand existing grounds for termination to
include political motivation.
We all agree that IRS employees should not act with a political
purpose. We all passionately believe that. But I want it to be clear
that because of the environment in which this bill is being considered,
there is absolutely no evidence that any IRS employees acted with
political motivation in the matter under investigation. The inspector
general reviewed and concluded that ``there is no indication that
pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.''
The inspector general has come before Congress repeatedly and
testified numerous times that he has found no evidence of political
motivation. At the very first hearing on this matter that was held in
mid-May, the inspector general was asked if he found any evidence of
political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption
applications. He answered, ``We did not, sir.''
When questioned by my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
McDermott, whether he stands behind the assertion that ``no one acted
out of malice or political motivation,'' the inspector general
answered, ``We have no evidence at this time to contradict that
assertion, sir.''
When my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Becerra, asked
him if it is correct that he did not find any evidence of political
motivation here, the inspector general replied, ``That is correct,
sir.''
In addition--and I want to emphasize this--staff from the Ways and
Means Committee and Government Oversight Committees of this House have
interviewed 17 IRS employees directly involved in this matter under
oath, and none of these employees have suggested that the IRS actions
were either politically motivated or the result of influence by any
individual or organization outside of the IRS.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the IG asked his investigative arm
to review 5,500 emails. The head of the investigation concluded, ``The
emails indicated the organizations needed to be pulled because the IRS
employees were not sure how to process them, not because they wanted to
stall or hinder the application. There was no indication that pulling
these applications was politically motivated. The email traffic
indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted
to make sure they had guidance on processing the applications so they
pulled them.''
It's clear that there's no evidence of political motivation by the
IRS under investigation now. Indeed, there has been too much political
motivation in this entire effort by Republicans.
I want to say just a few words about what's in the bill, and the
gentleman from Ohio and I have discussed this. The majority did not
follow regular order. This bill did not come before the Ways and Means
Committee. It essentially was not considered either at the subcommittee
level, I believe, or the full committee level. So the Republican
majority, in my judgment, did not carefully draft their bill to ensure
that it was consistent with the current statute. If it had done so,
there might have been improvement to this legislation and added the
language ``willful failure'' as it appears under four of the other acts
and omissions.
I think this bill will go to the Senate, as it should. I hope if it
considers it, it will take up this issue of whether or not there should
be a willful requirement in terms of its conduct because we're talking
about the ability administratively to discharge an employee.
{time} 1600
I think if there is political motivation on their part, action should
be taken. I think it is also important that we understand that there
had to be some willfulness in that action.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying this bill
has nothing to do with the current investigation. It's really about
installing public confidence back when it comes to the IRS. I would
also like to say this that bill makes no changes to the current process
or procedures for removing an IRS employee. It would simply add
political targeting to the list of offenses listed in current law. And
I've already said, in 1998, this legislation was approved 402-8.
As far as not having a hearing, is that technically going to be the
reason opponents vote again restoring credibility to the IRS? And for
the record, this bill was widely circulated, and I was more than
willing to make changes to the bipartisan legislation. I drafted this
language to remain as close to existing law as possible.
My addition is simply added to the current offense list No. 10:
targeting a taxpayer for personal gain. Under current law, No. 10 does
not use the term ``willful.'' Therefore, I did not add willful.
However, targeting a taxpayer for personal gain or political purposes
could only be done in an intentional manner. And let's not forget the
Commissioner of the IRS always has the ability to not remove somebody.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our
committee and the vice chair of our caucus.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend and colleague and ranking member of
the Ways and Means Committee for yielding me this time.
I do appreciate and I don't want to call into question the motivation
of how this bill came to the floor, but I find it hard to believe that
we are here on this particular issue dealing with individuals who work
at the IRS and what would be deemed as a fireable offense and somehow
not be related to the ongoing investigation into the IRS and the
political motivations behind not the gentleman but my Republican
colleagues as a whole in bringing this bill to the floor without a
hearing in committee. That it just happened to fall onto the floor this
afternoon and has no tangential connection to what is happening, I find
a little bit difficult to believe.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it is not an
attempt at better governance, but rather it is a solution in search of
a problem. In the months of investigations into the IRS targeting of
nonprofits, here is what we found without a doubt:
Progressive groups were targeted alongside Tea Party affiliations.
There was no interference or coordination in the targeting scandal by
anyone at the White House or at the Treasury Department.
No IRS agents have ever been cited or even been accused of forcing
their own personal political ideology onto the process of granting
nonprofit status. In fact, the person who was in charge of the IRS
nonprofit office in Cincinnati self-identifies as a conservative
Republican.
Those are all facts. So this bill is a solution in search of a
problem.
But still, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the sensitive powers at the
fingertips of IRS employees, and I would be open to looking into
whether we should add something to this as a fireable offense. But the
Ways and Means Committee, as I said before, held no hearings on this
bill. We've had many hearings of testimony on the issue of the IRS, but
not on this specific bill. It was never considered in committee. It was
drafted at the last minute to fulfill, in my opinion, the Republican
Party desire to say how awful government is. What better way to do it
than to use the IRS?
And when you govern like that, these are the kinds of bills we get on
the floor. But worse, I believe this is just a ploy being used to cover
up the facts surrounding this IRS problem, and I believe it actually
harms our ability to address the real management issues at the IRS that
were the basis of the problem to begin with.
So once again, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, bills don't just
fall out of the sky and land on the floor of the House without a
hearing in committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. CROWLEY. Bills don't just fall out of the sky, Mr. Speaker. They
don't. They're here to meet a purpose. The purpose was to evade the
committee process in regular order and to bring this bill here before
we break for the summer recess, the last week in Congress before the
summer recess, for a political purpose. I've stated it. It's not worth
restating again, but I do suggest that the notion or idea that this
[[Page H5214]]
bill is on the floor and has nothing to do with the ongoing
investigation, in my opinion, is very hard to believe.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are listening to
this debate because the American people are the ones who have the
right, they have the right to know that they are not going to be
targeted, whether they're conservative, liberal, whatever organization
they are. And that's what this bill is about. It's about the American
people.
In regards to bringing it up in a hearing, it's interesting because I
think my colleagues were at the hearing where I actually asked the
Commissioner what he thought about political targeting being added and
he indicated he wasn't sure if it was in there, but thought it was a
good idea. So even the Acting Commissioner made that comment, that this
was an issue that should be considered.
This is about the American people. This is about restoring confidence
not only in the American people but in the IRS. As an employer for over
28 years, I wanted to make sure all of my employees felt the integrity,
and when there was a concern, we had issues with fixing that problem.
This is about fixing a problem for the American people. I hope the
American people continue to listen to this debate because this is one
that I know the American people are behind.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the gentleman from Ohio ready to close?
Mr. RENACCI. I am.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
There's no question there should be no political motivation. So far
there's been no evidence there was any.
This bill is being brought up in a context. It's outlined in the
Republican playbook and, that is, go home and essentially go after the
government. I think we should make sure in Washington that we act so
the government acts on our behalf.
So everybody can reach their own judgment. I've told the gentleman
from Ohio that the way you drafted it--and I'll just read this. The
present language says ``threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose
of extracting personal gain or benefit.'' That's the present language.
Threatening is willful by definition. You can't threaten somebody
unwillfully. Instead, we have new language, and I want to pick up the
point of Mr. Crowley in terms of regular procedure. I mentioned it
before.
It's important that we follow regular order in this institution. The
bills before oversight were brought before the committee. We had no
chance to act on this, and I would have suggested that the word
``willful'' be placed before it. However, everyone will vote as they
wish on this. I think it will pass. It will go over to the Senate, and
I will suggest if this passes and the Senate decides to act, that they
take a clear look at whether there needs to be a requirement of an
intentional misdeed as defined here because what we're talking about is
the discharge of an employee; and whether it's IRS or some other
government employee, whether in a local unit or any unit, it seems to
me--or in the military, for example--I think we want to have some
consideration of due process for them.
So that's the basis for the discussion here. This bill, I think,
talks about political motivation. And I just wanted to add, as I end,
the thought expressed before. There has been no evidence of political
motivation by an IRS employee, and the effort to try to tie what
happened there to the executive was an example of pure political
motivation and terribly misguided and I think a harmful kind of
connection when it did not exist. We should not do that in this
country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, I want to thank my colleague for saying that political
targeting should not occur in any way, shape, or form. So I would agree
with him. And what this does, this ensures no political targeting going
forward, which is important. We agree that political targeting
shouldn't occur. This ensures political targeting doesn't happen going
forward.
The other issue, when we talk about the change in the language, the
current language says threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose
of extracting personal gain. We talk about the same thing by saying:
Performing, delaying, or failing to perform (or threatening
to perform, delay, or fail to perform) any official action
(including any audit) with respect to a taxpayer for purpose
of extracting personal gain or benefit or for a political
purpose.
So we are actually protecting the integrity of the IRS going forward.
This is a simple piece of legislation that really implements the will
of the American people. It shows we will not allow our constituents to
be targeted based on their political beliefs. This is the only
bipartisan measure we consider on this topic today. It simply improves
an existing process that was approved with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
As I said earlier, the IRS needs this. The hardworking employees of
the IRS who have been tainted by this scandal need this. But let's
remember this has nothing to do with the scandal. Let's begin the long
process of restoring faith in our government. Let's come together, put
politics aside, and show the American people that the IRS is above
politics. I urge all Members to support this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 2565.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________