[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1919-H1921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING TAXPAYERS FROM INTRUSIVE IRS REQUESTS ACT
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2531) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking
taxpayers questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2531
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 ``Protecting Taxpayers from
Intrusive IRS Requests Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELIGIOUS,
POLITICAL, OR SOCIAL BELIEFS.
(a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Service shall not ask
any taxpayer any question regarding religious, political, or
social beliefs.
(b) Sense of Congress Regarding Exceptions.--It is the
sense of Congress that--
(1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are provided by
later enacted provisions of law should identify the specific
questions which are authorized, the class of taxpayers to
which such questions are authorized to be asked, and the
circumstances under which such questions are authorized to be
asked, and
(2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
determines that asking any class of taxpayers a question
prohibited under subsection (a) would aid in the efficient
administration of the tax laws, such Commissioner should
submit a report to Congress which--
(A) includes such question in the verbatim form in which it
is to be asked,
(B) describes the class of taxpayers to whom the question
is to be asked, and
(C) describes the circumstances that would be required to
exist before the question would be asked.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman
[[Page H1920]]
from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
General Leave
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I draw your attention to H.R. 2531, the Protecting Taxpayers from
Intrusive IRS Requests Act. Let me give you a quick summary, Mr.
Speaker, of what the bill does. Let me give you an example that we
heard in the Ways and Means Committee that prompted this. And I look
forward to hearing from my colleague, Mr. Davis.
The legislation establishes a new procedure for the IRS to follow
when asking questions regarding three areas: religious, political, and
social beliefs. And the following is the new procedure: the IRS can't
ask those questions. They can't ask about religious, political, or
social beliefs. And there are two exceptions. One is a question or set
of questions that is approved by Congress by an enacted law; or, if the
IRS Commissioner deems questions are important to aid in tax
administration and submits a report to Congress, which must include the
following and be approved by a joint resolution of Congress:
State the specific questions that were authorized;
Describe the class of taxpayers who will be asked the questions;
Describe the circumstances surrounding the taxpayers being asked
those questions.
So where is this coming from? What is this all about?
We heard testimony from six witnesses, Mr. Speaker, who came before
the Ways and Means Committee as the IRS scandal was breaking. These six
witnesses in particular I found to be compelling. I found them to be
compelling for two reasons:
Number one, they didn't give up on their country. When they were
being targeted by the Federal Government, these witnesses kept faith
and kept hope with the America that they knew existed, and they were
not willing to feel overwhelmed even though the events were actually
fairly overwhelming, being targeted by your Federal Government to say
you can and cannot participate in the public square. That is one reason
I admire them.
The second reason, Mr. Speaker, was this. They came to Washington to
do something about it. They engaged Congress. They engaged in the full
committee. They gave compelling testimony. The testimony moved us. It
moved me to introduce this bill.
Here was the single, without question, most compelling witness who
spoke that day, in my view. She represented a right-to-life group in
Iowa. She told the story of being asked by the Internal Revenue Service
in written interrogatories--in other words, pieces of paper with
questions written down that come from the Internal Revenue Service to
their little group--and the inquiry was, Tell us about your prayers.
Tell us about your prayer meetings. What goes on at those?
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that our freedom to worship is
our first freedom, and our freedom to worship is central to who we are.
The long, powerful arm of the Federal Government is coming in and
grabbing a little right-to-life group by the neck and shaking them
around, saying, Write down what happens in your prayer meetings and
write it down and sign your name, under penalty of perjury. That is
exactly what those questions did.
I was sobered by that. That was chastening testimony to hear that
this agency, this agency of delegated authority from the people's
House, has now used that and, I would argue, misused that. Why in the
world does the Internal Revenue Service need to know about the prayer
meetings of a pro-life group in Iowa? That is a shameful abuse and a
shameful scandal that they even asked those questions.
But what does it tell you?
It tells you that there was a way of thinking, a culture, I would
argue, at the Internal Revenue Service that said, We are empowered to
do these things.
Well, if that is what they think, let's correct that, shall we, Mr.
Speaker? Let's say that they can't ask those questions. The questions
about religion, your political beliefs, and about what your social
beliefs are have nothing to do with what the Internal Revenue Service
should be doing as it relates to tax administration.
So these are very clear limitations. There are a couple of
exceptions. But it is meant clearly to put the IRS back where they
belong on the tax administration side and not deciding who gets to
participate in the public square of debate and who doesn't.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Coming from the same and neighboring communities and State as my
colleague, we agree on many things. We all agree that the Internal
Revenue Service should not ask about your religious, political, or
social beliefs in determining your taxpayer status. That is different,
however, from asking you about your political activities, which was at
the root of the Internal Revenue Service's mismanagement of the
501(c)(4) applications.
The IRS did the right thing in trying to group together applications
by activity, but they were wrong in using party names and labels from
both Democrats and Republicans in their organizational process.
The division that was the subject of the May 2013 TIGTA report was
grossly mismanaged in that it allowed these applications to be selected
by name and then allowed them to sit for an inordinate length of time.
Swift corrective action was taken to remove the ineffective management,
and the subsequent IRS leadership has put the agency on the right path
to restoring the public trust.
There has never been any evidence of political motivation or
influence from anyone either inside or outside the IRS. Treasury's
inspector general repeatedly testified that he found no evidence of
political motivation in the selection of processing of tax exemption
applications that were the subject of his report. Indeed, an extensive
review of 5,500 employee emails by the TIGTA Office of Investigations
concluded that there was no political motivation in trying to group
these applications.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, what we saw was a small division
of a very large agency that struggled to determine how to handle tax-
exempt applications from politically motivated groups. Consequently,
they allowed those applications to sit for an inordinate amount of time
while it tried to determine what criteria to use to judge who
determined tax-exempt status.
We also had a flawed TIGTA report that deliberately removed any
reference to Progressive and Democratic groups from the criteria the
IRS actually used to group applications together and consequently
presented a one-sided and partisan conclusion about this issue to
Congress.
What we do not have is any evidence of political motivation in the
processing of tax exemption applications or any evidence of outside
influence in the selection or processing of tax exemption applications.
Mr. Speaker, I think enough is enough. It is time for us to move on
to processing issues like extending long-term unemployment insurance
benefits, raising the minimum wage, and fixing our immigration laws.
Let us give the American people some confidence that their Congress can
debate and pass bills on these important issues.
Yes, there was activity that took place which is unacceptable. The
individuals have been removed from those positions. Let us take the
Internal Revenue Service and move it on to higher heights, giving the
American people that each and every citizen is treated fairly, with
respect, and with the dignity that all of us deserve as citizens of
this great Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague said enough is enough. I guess enough is enough if you
are one of the ones that wasn't impacted. But if you were impacted by
the IRS targeting, it had a jarring effect on you.
[[Page H1921]]
And if we are going to move forward, if we are going to have the
Internal Revenue Service have the respect that we need it to have,
which it doesn't have right now, there is an overwhelming level of
concern and consternation about how the IRS handled these things in the
past and how they conducted themselves.
The fact that the Internal Revenue Service has not been forthcoming
pursuant to Chairman Camp's request for information is not in dispute.
There is nobody here that is arguing the IRS has been completely
forthcoming and given the chairman all the information he needs or that
he has requested. No. They haven't been forthcoming, and that continues
to be a real problem.
I think it is important for us to recognize that the TIGTA report was
an audit. It was not an investigation. An investigation is ongoing. So
this notion that there is no knowledge or there is no indication of any
sort of political influence, I think that there is a great deal of
knowledge of political influence that was peddled and used here, and I
think the facts bear it out.
{time} 1730
The scope of the audit that the gentleman was referring to was to
focus on conservative targeting. The IG struck within the parameters of
the audit. Far more conservative groups faced IRS scrutiny, they faced
more questions, and were approved at a lower rate than progressive
groups were.
Numbers are very straightforward: 104 conservative groups experienced
an average of 15 additional questions, only 46 percent of conservative
applicants were approved, and 56 percent of groups are either waiting
for a determination or have withdrawn in frustration.
Now, that is messed up. If you are withdrawing because you can't get
a straight answer, you are just feeling overwhelmed, who wins then?
The Internal Revenue Service wins, and the taxpayer that wants to
participate in the public debate loses.
Compare that to seven progressive groups that were asked an average
of just five additional questions.
You know what, Mr. Speaker?
Every one of those progressive groups was approved--100 percent of
them were approved.
We know now that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants,
but also right-leaning groups that are already operating as 501(c)(4)s,
and at Washington, D.C.'s direction, not Cincinnati's initiative, at
Washington, D.C.'s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s
were flagged for IRS surveillance, monitoring of the groups'
activities, Web sites, and any other publicly available information.
Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning, and of the groups
that the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent of those were
conservative-leaning. So, this idea that this was, well, everybody is
treated the same way, the facts don't bear that out, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to draw attention to one particular group, a constituency
that I represent, the West Suburban Patriots of DuPage County. They
submitted their application for 501(c)(4) status in May of 2011. They
received a letter from the IRS acknowledging their application. Nearly
4 months later they were told their application was ``in the pile.''
Over a year later, June of 2012, the West Suburban Patriots received
a letter indicating that they had to answer a series of questions in an
incredibly short timeframe. The questions were political, and
demonstrated that the IRS scoured their Web site by demanding
information that would be on their Members Only web page.
Isn't that interesting?
In July of 2012 they received a letter granting their 501(c)(4)
status.
Now, the West Suburban Patriots name and tax ID number were found on
a list of ``political advocacy cases'' that the Exempt Organizations
Office in D.C. made to track Tea Party cases, and USA Today received
the confidential political advocacy list and made it public.
Here is the point: this is not what the Internal Revenue Service
should be doing. The Internal Revenue Service should be making proper
inquiries, not asking about prayer meetings, not being passive
aggressive, choosing winners and losers in the public square.
This is an important piece of legislation. It reclaims authority that
was once delegated and has been abused, and now needs to be reclaimed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
You know, I think with the IRS, we are, like, approaching a fork in
the middle of the road and we have choices that we can make.
We now have new leadership. The agency has been sanitized. The
individuals with culpability are no longer there. They no longer play
in any leadership roles at all.
The new Commissioner has given us every assurance, and he comes to
the IRS with an impeccable record from both public and private
activity, and has given every assurance that can be given that he is
going to take that road that leads to the highest level of integrity,
that we can bank on the Internal Revenue Service being as fair as fair
can be.
I like to believe that he means what he says, and that he says what
he means. So I am confident that we have a new IRS, and we will see it
function with a new light, a new spirit, and a new direction.
So I thank my colleague. I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Mr. Davis for engaging in this debate and this
discussion, and I think he is right. We are at a fork in the road. I
would describe the fork in the road as the responsibility that we have
in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to take this challenge, and that is to
do everything that we can, in light of this information that has come
to our attention, to make sure that the Internal Revenue Service is
being limited, is not allowed to ask questions regarding religion or
social questions or political questions, and that we can enjoy a day in
the future when they enjoy our respect. With that, I urge passage the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2531.
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.
____________________