[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.

                          ____________________