[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2243-H2249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1563) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that
individuals having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible
for Federal employment, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1563
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 2015''.
SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF NONCOMPLIANT TAXPAYERS 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 NONCOMPLIANT TAXPAYERS FOR FEDERAL
EMPLOYMENT
``Sec. 7381. Definitions
``For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) The term `seriously delinquent tax debt' means a
Federal tax liability that has been assessed by the Secretary
of the Treasury under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
may be collected by the Secretary by
[[Page H2244]]
levy or by a proceeding in court, 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 continuous 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 such a levy); and
``(D) a debt with respect to which such a levy is released
under section 6343(a)(1)(D) of such Code;
``(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
individual 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
individual applying for employment with such agency shall be
required to submit (as part of the application for
employment) certification that such individual 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 applicable 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 requested and the number of exemptions
granted under 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 has
been filed pursuant to section 6323 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 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--
``(A) the employee or applicant has a seriously delinquent
tax debt; or
``(B) there is a final administrative or judicial
determination that such employee or applicant committed any
act described under section 7385(b); and
``(2) request that the Secretary of the Treasury disclose
any information so authorized to be disclosed.
``(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 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.
``Sec. 7385. Adverse actions for employees who understate
taxes or fail to file
``(a) In General.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c) and paragraph
(2) of this subsection, the head of an agency may take any
personnel action against an employee of such agency if there
is a final administrative or judicial determination that such
employee committed any act described under subsection (b).
``(2) Personnel actions.--In paragraph (1), the term
`personnel action' includes separation but does not include
administrative leave or any other type of paid leave without
duty or charge to leave.
``(b) Acts.--The acts referred to under subsection (a)(1)
are--
``(1) willful failure to file any return of tax required
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, unless such failure
is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect; or
``(2) willful understatement of Federal tax liability,
unless such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not
to willful neglect.
``(c) Procedure.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Office of Personnel Management, an employee subject to a
personnel action under this section shall be entitled to the
procedures provided under sections 7513 or 7543, as
applicable.''.
(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 noncompliant taxpayers for federal
employment
``7381. Definitions.
``7382. Ineligibility for employment.
``7383. Review of public records.
``7384. Confidentiality.
``7385. Adverse actions for employees who understate taxes or fail to
file.''.
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
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me be clear right away. We have got great Federal workers. They
care; they are patriotic; they work hard, but we have got a few that
are bad apples. We have got to give the tools necessary to the
leadership within the administration to do what is right and, if
necessary, allow them latitude to let those people go.
We voted on a similar bill years ago before I got into Congress. We
gave this right and authority. We gave it to the IRS. Guess what, the
IRS has the best tax compliance in all Federal Government--who would
have thought.
I was pleased to see that Congressman Steny Hoyer voted for that
piece of legislation, that Congressman Elijah Cummings voted for that
legislation.
We want to take that same power, that same right that we gave the IRS
years ago because it worked--it worked--and we want to give that to the
other departments and agencies.
Now, there are a lot of exceptions; there are a lot of ways to get
out of this, but the basic principle is true. One, Federal workers do a
better job of paying their taxes than the general public, and we should
pat them on the back, and we should recognize them for that; but, two,
when you do have a few bad apples, you have got to allow leadership the
ability to let those people go if they continue to thumb their nose at
the system and the taxpayers.
We just heard testimony from the DEA: I can't fire anybody, even
though they were engaged in some very nefarious activity.
We heard the administrator of the EPA say: I can't let anybody go,
even though the person is watching 4 hours of porn a day.
Four hours a day, they couldn't fire them. Let's give them some
latitude because we have a test case. It has worked. We want tax
compliance.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget asks American taxpayers to
spend $275 billion to pay Federal workers an average salary of more
than $78,000; yet the IRS reports that more than 100,000 Federal
civilian employees owed more than $1 billion in unpaid Federal income
taxes in 2014--more than $1 billion.
[[Page H2245]]
{time} 1530
Now, there are lots of reasons people can't do that. There are people
who need to have their wages garnished, and they are. There are people
who are disputing what the IRS said. Again, this bill doesn't affect
those people. The adjudication process continues on, and this bill
doesn't affect those people. As a last resort, we need a tool that the
IRS has for its employees. We need that tool for the other departments
and agencies because, like it or not, the law requires that we pay
taxes.
Five years ago, President Obama directed his administration to crack
down on tax cheats. It was specifically targeting and discussing
contractors, but I would argue that the same principle for contractors
should be in place for Federal employees. How can you look the
contractors and the employees in the eyes and say, Well, we have got
two totally different standards of principles? The principle is the
same--pay your taxes, and there is not a problem. If you are in trouble
and if you are trying to get out of it, not a problem. We will work
with you. Yet, for those of you who are just screwing over the American
taxpayer, bye-bye. You can't even apply.
The President said:
All across this country, there are people who meet their
obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You support
your families. You pay the taxes you owe--because it's a
fundamental responsibility of citizenship.
I totally and wholeheartedly agree.
The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act makes individuals with
seriously delinquent tax debt ineligible for Federal employment. It is
defined as an outstanding Federal tax debt that has been assessed and
may be collected by levy or court proceeding. The legislation does not
affect employees who are working to settle their tax disputes or
resolving outstanding liabilities.
I want to also remind everybody that the committee and I, as the
prime sponsor, accepted every Democrat amendment that was offered--100
percent.
Several other safeguards are carved out in the bill, including
provisions offered by the minority in the previous Congresses.
Individuals are provided full due process rights and have an
additional 180 days to demonstrate their debts meet one of the
exemptions of the bill. That was, I believe, offered by Congressman
Lynch. We accepted it. We thought we would get broader support because
of it, and we would hope we would today.
The bill also provides a financial hardship exemption if the
individual's service is in the best interest of the United States. The
person who is leading that department or agency still has discretion.
If he says, It is in the best interest, in my judgment, for the United
States to continue to have this person serve, he is allowed to continue
to serve.
The bill demonstrates a simple principle: individuals collecting
Federal salaries funded by taxpayers have to follow the rules and pay
their taxes.
Those charged with the stewardship of our Federal resources and
programs should not be delinquent in their taxes. As all Americans file
their taxes today, so should Federal employees, and most of them do--in
fact, at better rates than civilians do.
Last month, in testimony before the committee, the GAO warned
Congress of tens of thousands of Federal employees who were eligible
for security clearances but who still had unpaid tax debts. I would
argue that that is a potential security risk. It shows a vulnerability.
During the hearing, Members discussed the IRS employees' high rate of
tax compliance.
From 2009 to 2013, IRS employees had a 0.8 percent delinquency rate
compared to 3.3 percent for civilian workers throughout the government.
The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which, again, Mr.
Hoyer, Mr. Cummings, and a host of other people voted in favor of,
requires the removal of IRS employees who are found to have willfully
failed to have filed their tax returns and who have willfully
understated their Federal tax liabilities.
The House passed the conference report for this bill by a vote of
402-8. Overwhelming. I have never heard another Member complain that
the IRS has this provision in place. Let's even the playing field.
Let's give that same tool to the rest of the Federal Government. Don't
give it just to the IRS. Give it to the Department of Defense. Give it
to the other departments and agencies because the financial results of
that work.
This bill makes Federal workers subject to the same standard as that
for IRS employees. Not all Federal workers are tax cheats. This is not
about politics. I appreciate the good work that has gone on in this
bill. Unfortunately, despite past efforts, we have not been able to get
this bill over the finish line. I hope the House will again support the
bill, as it did in 2012, and that the Senate will act on this bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax
Accountability Act of 2015.
The bill seeks to resolve a problem of tax compliance that simply
does not exist--a fact confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service. This
measure is based on ideology rather than on facts, and it will
perpetuate a negative image of Federal workers.
This legislation is very similar to H.R. 249, introduced in the last
Congress, which I opposed in committee and on this House floor. I
remain opposed to this legislation because the purpose and intent of
the bill is the same as the measure from last Congress. It would
require Federal agencies to fire Federal employees who are delinquent
in paying their taxes.
Everyone, including Federal employees, should pay their taxes. There
is no argument on that. My Republican colleagues seem to believe that
there is a serious problem with Federal employees not paying their
taxes and that it requires a legislative fix. There is not, and the
chairman, I think, admitted that.
Last Congress, after committee consideration, former committee
chairman--Chairman Issa--and I sought information from the IRS on their
rules and procedures regarding debt collections, options for resolving
delinquencies, and payment options. Without waiting for these answers,
the Republican leadership rushed this bill to the floor. During this
Congress, we were able to obtain valuable information from the IRS
which the Republicans have chosen to ignore by bringing this
legislation to the floor.
The IRS has a mechanism in place already to recoup funds from Federal
employees who fail to pay their taxes. It is known as the Federal
Payment Levy Program. Under this program, the IRS can impose a
continuous levy on Federal salaries and pensions up to 15 percent until
the debt is paid. The IRS can initiate additional levies in cases when
it determines that it is appropriate to do so. Data from the IRS shows
that all Federal employees who owe taxes and who do not qualify for
financial hardship exemptions or who are not involved in bankruptcy,
litigation, or pending offers in compromise are subject to having their
wages levied. That can happen today.
Since the start of the levy program, the IRS has been extremely
successful in recovering delinquent taxes from Federal employees.
According to the IRS, the levy program has collected over $5 billion
since 2000. These facts indicate that the IRS is succeeding in
recovering delinquent taxes in 100 percent or in nearly all cases
involving Federal employees. The fact is that the IRS has confirmed
that it does not have a problem in collecting delinquent taxes from
Federal employees. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see a problem with
the government's ability to recover delinquent taxes from Federal
employees.
I do not understand why, despite this fact, we are debating this
measure on the floor today. According to the IRS, the 2014 tax
compliance rate for the Federal community was 97 percent. This is
higher than the 95 percent tax compliance rate for Members and staffs
of the House of Representatives. It is also much higher than the 91
percent compliance rate for the general public.
This legislation is designed to demonize Federal employees rather
than to help the government recoup delinquent taxes. It is interesting
to note that we want to collect the taxes, but we will never get them
if we fire people. In fact, the Congressional Budget
[[Page H2246]]
Office concluded that these proposals would increase costs, by the way,
to the taxpayers. Let me repeat. The CBO determined that these
provisions would actually increase costs. That is because it would
require agencies to spend time and resources in reviewing public
records to find tax liens filed against current or prospective
employees even though the gains would be minimal. Keep in mind that we
already have a process to levy these funds that might be delinquent.
For these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this
particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about what this bill is
and what it is not.
When we talk about tax compliance, it becomes very easy to focus on
those hardship cases, very easy to focus, as the gentleman opposite
just talked about, on that 3 to 5 percent, depending on which agency
you are talking about. This bill is really not about those with
hardship cases, as there is already an exemption there. This bill is
not about trying to penalize Federal workers. It is really about
fairness, Mr. Speaker.
Why is it fair that 97 percent in some agency--94 and 95 in others--
pay their taxes on time, and yet we continue to give others a free
pass?
My friend opposite would many times suggest, Oh, well, they are
complying better than this group and that group; but we need to look no
further than the IRS because the IRS implemented a different standard
within their agency. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Their compliance
went way up. They have one of the best records, that we get to oversee,
with the Federal employees.
When we started to look at this, the chairman was very careful to
make sure that hardship cases--the ones that all of our hearts go out
to when people have family situations that preclude them from being
able to pay their taxes on a timely basis--are an exemption. Yet I
would say, whether it is Congress or whether it is the Federal
employees, we are held to a different standard because we are paid with
the hard-working American taxpayers' dollars. It is a higher standard
than the private sector's. It is difficult for us to acknowledge that,
but we are under the scrutiny that we should be because we have the
authority to tax and spend. When you have both of those authorities,
Mr. Speaker, it is a different standard.
I, for one, can tell you that, from the Federal employees'
standpoint, it is all about making sure that we are fair to them. What
happens is, when the headline is ``Federal employees are not paying
their taxes,'' for whatever reason it may be, it paints in a bad light
the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who do everything right
and on time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what we must do is not only address this
for the integrity of the American people but address it for the
integrity and the spirit of those Federal workers as well.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I want somebody to answer for me: How do you get the money
from somebody who is fired, who has no job?
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my
friend.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking member said this was a bill to solve a
nonexistent problem. Everybody ought to pay their taxes--everybody.
Everybody ought to pay their taxes. Now, if you are really rich, you
can find an accountant who can find you about every loophole there is
that we have given. You want to have a bill on the floor closing
loopholes.
{time} 1545
The chairman admits that Federal employees pay their taxes
voluntarily and correctly at a higher percentage than the general
public. Should every one of them pay? Should it be 100 percent? The
chairman is right; it should be 100 percent.
The gentleman from North Carolina talks about our Federal employees,
and they ought to be treated correctly. We are their board of
directors. I will tell you, folks, if any board of directors of any
large corporation in America treated its employees the way we treat
them, they would all quit, and the company would go bankrupt, because
we treat our Federal employees very poorly--very poorly.
The general public, of course, thinks they are loafing and they are
not working hard and this, that, and the other, and that is wrong. We
have the best civil service in the world.
This does convey the message that somehow you are not doing what you
are supposed to do. I know the gentleman gets up and says this is a
very small percentage. When a Member of Congress doesn't pay his taxes
and he gets indicted and he has to quit this body, it besmirches all of
us.
The gentleman from Maryland is absolutely correct. It has not been
mentioned, but there is a provision in law that allows the IRS to go in
and take the salary of Federal employees. That is what the gentleman is
talking about. Unlike the private sector, where you have to go through
a lot of rigmarole--properly so, to protect the taxpayer--the Federal
employee is subjected to the IRS having special authority going and
taking part of their salary.
Now, by the way, this mentions Federal employees. I don't know
whether the ranking member knows the answer to this, but are Members of
Congress included in that definition? The answer? The gentleman is
shaking his head, saying no. Yet the Congress as an institution has a
lower rate of paying, some 95 percent as opposed to 97 percent, of
Federal employees.
What is this all about? This is about, frankly, saying government is
bad and the people who work for them aren't so hot either. Now, I don't
think the gentleman from Utah thinks that is the message. I understand
that. The gentleman is my friend. I like him. He is a bright and able
fellow. But that is the message we are sending. It's a bad message.
I will tell you, I represent 62,000 Federal employees, and I tell all
of them and all the unions, if they are not performing their job, if
they are watching television 4 hours a day, they ought to be fired. I
will support the gentleman in that effort because we ought to demand
performance, and that is why we have, in the IRS Code, you can take the
salary if they are not paying their taxes. That is not true of any
other employee in America. You have got to go through a legal process,
et cetera, et cetera, as you should.
So I would urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, as we did in the
last Congress on suspension, and yes, tell all of our employees, ``You
need to pay your taxes,'' and make sure if they don't, IRS gets their
fees; and if they are not performing their task and it undermines their
performance, then we ought to subject them, just as every other
employee, to being removed, but not simply to say, arbitrarily, this
employee, these employees, our employees, America's employees, will be
treated more harshly than the American people and the American workers
around this country are treated. Treat them the same. That is fair.
That is what they hope for.
We shut down government for 16 days, sent our employees home. The
gentleman from North Carolina talked about there are some bad
circumstances for some people: they have got to pay a mortgage payment
or a rent payment or a car payment or a college tuition. We sent them
home and we said: We are not paying you. We came back later and we
said: Oh, no, we are going to pay you. But we caused them a great deal
of angst.
I will tell you this: that is not the way to treat people. We didn't
send them home because we didn't have the money to pay for them. We
didn't send them home because America was bankrupt. We sent them home
because we disagreed with a policy the President was pursuing or we
wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, over which they had no
control. But we sent them home without pay. Very frankly, those who
were critical employees we kept working, but we didn't pay them. What
way is that to run any organization, much less the greatest country on
the face of the Earth?
I urge my colleagues, show respect and fairness to those who work for
our
[[Page H2247]]
country in the civil service of our country. Reject this legislation.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard speeches on this floor about fairness,
about treating them the same. I will remind Members that on June 25,
1998, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act--which Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Cummings, and others voted in favor of--gave this same power and
authority to the IRS, gave them the same authority and power. Why not
treat them equally and fairly? Why not treat them exactly the same as
the IRS employees? Why are the IRS employees treated so unfairly?
Other Members that are standing here on this floor today voted in
favor of that bill. So it was okay back then, just gave it to them.
Guess what; tax compliance went up.
I take issue with this quote, ``ideology rather than facts.'' The
facts are, every single year the number of Federal employees not paying
their Federal taxes has gone up. In fact, in 2008, we roughly didn't
collect $962 million; in 2014, $1.14 billion.
If you pay your taxes, you are trying to pay your taxes, you don't
have a problem. But if you want to be fair, if you want to be the same,
if you want to treat them equally, then give the other departments and
agencies the same power that we gave the IRS.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. What other employee in America is subject to being fired
because they don't pay taxes? Does the gentleman want to include either
Members of Congress in this bill or all private sector employees?
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the spirit in which
that is asked. I would hope the gentleman would join me in cosponsoring
H.R. 1564, the Members of Congress Tax Accountability Act. There are
constitutional reasons why we can't include them in this provision, but
this bill has been referred to the Committee on House Administration,
and I would encourage all Members to get behind this because there
should be a higher standard for Members of Congress. That should be
more readily available to the public. You should have to disclose that
liability. Right now, you don't. So I introduced that bill as well.
I would also argue that Federal employees taking taxpayer dollars
have a high standard and that the evidence that we have--and I have
said it repeatedly, and I know the gentleman has heard this--Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Hoyer voted in favor of this same bill years ago, and it
has worked. I have never heard anybody say, ``This is a problem. We
have got to change this. We have got to take it out.'' I have never
heard anybody offer an amendment. In fact, we accepted 100 percent,
every amendment that was offered by the Democrats. We accepted them. We
accepted them.
I want to tackle a couple other things.
Mr. HOYER. I don't think I got the answer to the private sector
employees.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Fair enough.
Reclaiming my time, since I didn't yield it, but reclaiming my time,
I said, clearly, I don't think this should be part of the private
sector. I think working for the Federal Government is a privilege, it
is an honor, and I take great exception, Mr. Speaker, to the idea and
the notion that we treat Federal workers so poorly that if we were a
company everybody would quit. Well, they can quit. They don't. You look
at the turnover rate in the private sector versus the turnover rate in
the Federal Government, we treat them pretty darn well.
Can we do things better? Yes. Part of that is weeding out the bad
apples. If you are sitting there watching pornography on your computer
4 hours a day, then you should be fired. If you are a DEA agent down
serving in Colombia and you have sex slaves coming before you paid by
them, then you should fire them. If you are a Federal worker thumbing
your nose at the Federal Government, not paying your taxes, then you
should be eligible to be fired by the supervisor. That supervisor,
don't we trust them to make that decision and say: You know what? This
person is so vital, they do such good work, we are going to keep them?
But you know what? 24,833 Federal employees didn't even file a
Federal tax return, didn't even file one last year. Is that too small a
percentage to worry about? How do you look people in the eye who are
all working in this room at some government office and they are all
paying their taxes, but these eight yahoos over here aren't paying
their taxes?
I believe that standing up for the Federal workers means, you know
what, we owe it to all of you that are doing a good job to make sure
that they are too. If they don't and they are not getting good, guess
what. A, you are not going to be hired, and, B, you are eligible to be
fired.
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what Mr. Hoyer voted for, and it worked.
It worked. It was a good piece of legislation. It was a good vote.
Guess what. The IRS now has the highest--less than 1 percent of their
people don't pay their Federal taxes. Give that same tool to the other
departments and agencies, and I think we will have even better
compliance, and we can look the American people in the eye and say: You
know what? We are doing everything we can. Stop picking on Federal
employees.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I would hope the gentleman would make it very, very clear
he is not making an analogy between the two instances that he cited for
firing, on which I would agree with him, and a Federal employee, for
whatever reason, says: Mr. Meadows may not have paid his taxes.
Certainly the gentleman is not making an analogy between the two
instances he cited and the latter, I hope; because if he is, he is
doing exactly what I think this bill does.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some words here on the floor describing
this bill as simply actually a bill to protect Federal workers who are
in compliance from that small percentage who aren't. We had a hearing
today in the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the committee of
which Mr. Chaffetz is full committee chair, and I asked the question of
the tax advocate of the IRS: How would you characterize 97 percent
compliance when the broad public compliance with tax compliance is 83
to 86 percent? So how would you characterize 97 percent? The answer
was: Extraordinary.
This is a solution in search of a problem, and the protestations to
the contrary notwithstanding, this is another way--albeit cloaked in
respectability and sanctimony--of whacking Federal employees again. We
just heard it: scratch the surface, and suddenly they are all watching
pornography; they are all sitting around not doing work; they are all,
in fact, not filing taxes, and they ought to be fired--let me go
through the list of firing offenses--allowing the impression that this
actually characterizes the Federal workforce.
My friend, the minority whip, said that if you were a CEO and managed
your company this way, you would be fired or your company would go out
of business. My friend from Utah took exception to that. But for those
who say we ought to run the Federal Government as a private company,
what CEO would keep his or her job who froze wages for 3 years; who
disparaged his workforce as being overcompensated, unproductive, lazy,
too many of them, and we are going to crack down on you; go after their
benefits and make sure they are reduced; threaten not to pay your bills
while you are at it? What company would stay in business? What CEO
would ever get away with that? That is what we are doing here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page H2248]]
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. We are disparaging the Federal workforce. No matter how
you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.
{time} 1600
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman in this room that
it was President Obama who introduced the pay freeze.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching some of this
dialogue, and I will pick right up where the gentleman from Virginia
just left off.
This is not an attack on Federal workers. I sat on the subcommittee,
Mr. Speaker, when we had the hearing on this issue. This is not an
attack on Federal workers. This has absolutely nothing to do with
Federal workers and everything to do with taking care of the people who
pay for those Federal workers, taking care of the people who pay the
taxes.
The story was told of what happened yesterday in the hearing about
the DEA. You can accept the services of a prostitute from a drug lord,
let the drug cartel members watch your guns and your cell phone, and
still not get fired.
It is not an attack on Federal workers. People back home see that and
think that we are crazy. They think we are completely nuts and that we
do not know how to run the country. You have to look at that hearing
yesterday and think: you know what, they may be right.
This bill is an attempt to at least try to send the message back home
to people and make it very clear: if someone is going to audit you for
not paying your taxes, at the very least that person will have paid
their taxes.
That is not a slam on Federal workers. It is going to the American
people who pay the taxes and saying: look, we may not do the best we
possibly can, but at least we pay attention to some things, and we are
going to make sure that the people that are auditing you are at least
following the law that they are making you follow.
That is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, and it is certainly not
an attack on the larger Federal workforce. It is simply trying to
reaffirm for people back home that we are not absurd and that we are
not crazy and that we are not running this country in any mindless
fashion, that we actually do pay attention to what is important to
folks back home.
If we can't fire the guys taking the prostitutes from the drug lords,
maybe we can make sure the people doing the audits pay the taxes. That
is what this bill is about, which is why it should pass.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's put in context what is happening on this floor
today. This is tax day, and what the majority does each tax day is pull
out tax bills. Some of them are good bills; some of them have the
appearance of everything but the kitchen sink.
There are some Members of their party who are running for President
on abolishing the IRS. Well, you can't abolish it; so what they are
doing is targeting working people in the Federal Government to point
out that Republicans are not asleep on tax day.
What the Republican majority is doing today is a gratuitous, useless,
slap in the face of Federal employees who apparently do understand that
they have an affirmative duty, even beyond others, to pay their taxes
because they do so at a rate that is almost twice that of the general
public which is more than twice that of other Americans.
The best that can be said about this bill is that it is entirely
superfluous. It does what already can be done. What can be done is
this: existing statutory authority gives the Federal Government, the
IRS, the ability to collect Federal, State, and local taxes from all
Federal employees.
If federal agencies find that there is a delinquent taxpayer, they
can already, under Federal law, go from counseling to removal for all
Federal employees. That is in the law already, my friends.
In their wisdom, Congresses in the past have wanted to keep Federal
employees paying their taxes until they paid them off, so Congress
didn't cut off its nose to spite its face by taking away their jobs as
this bill allows.
They tried something that has worked, the Federal Employee/Retiree
Delinquency Initiative, which matches up Federal employees in all the
agencies, not just the IRS, with delinquencies so they have their very
low delinquency rate today.
The IRS also can levy past the usual limit of 15 percent until the
government gets all its money. The IRS have the discretion to do this
for all Federal employees, not only IRS employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mooney of West Virginia). The time of
the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. NORTON. Chairman Issa called this bill entirely cosmetic--
conceded that this bill was cosmetic when it was introduced before.
If you want to do something about taxes for the American people, stop
cutting the IRS so that the IRS can start collecting taxes and cutting
the deficit.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch), my good friend.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal
Employee Tax Accountability Act.
I just want to point out that this is indeed about Federal employees,
the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. It is all about Federal
employees.
While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz), I remain concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563
will be to significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated
Federal workforce.
It is important to note that Internal Revenue Code section 6103
provides that all citizens, for all citizens, Federal tax information--
including tax returns, annual wage and tax statements, and tax penalty
notices--is strictly confidential and must remain in the trust of only
the IRS. It must remain in the trust of only the IRS and the individual
taxpayer. That is it. It is not open to general knowledge.
Under this bill, though, tax information--which now includes health
information because of the Affordable Care Act--is all going to be
shared among every single Federal agency to take so-called adverse
personnel actions against one of its employees where the agency finds
that an individual has willfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or
failed to file a return on time.
Now, we have completely blown this out. If it is not about Federal
employees, this is what we are going to do to every American taxpayer.
We are basically deputizing the bosses of all these Federal employees
to be able to delve into their personal tax information, their personal
healthcare information that is now held by the IRS.
We are blowing this completely out so that we are damaging all of
these Federal employees' privacy rights, and we also present the
possibility that, in the future, this will be done to every American
citizen. This is not a good idea.
I think that we have every opportunity to make sure the people pay
their taxes. There is a greater compliance rate among Federal employees
than there is among the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal
Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015. While I have the greatest
respect for the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, I remain
concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563 will be to
significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated Federal
workforce.
Importantly, Internal Revenue code section 6103 provides that all
federal tax information--including tax returns, annual wage and tax
statements, and tax penalty notices--is strictly confidential and must
remain in the trust of only the Internal Revenue Service and the
individual taxpayer. Current law therefore prohibits any federal
agency--other than the I.R.S.--from delving into personal tax
information to determine an individual's tax compliance status.
[[Page H2249]]
In stark contrast, H.R. 1563 would authorize the head of not only the
I.R.S. but every federal agency to take so-called ``adverse personnel
actions'' against one of its employees where the agency finds that an
individual has wilfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or failed to
file a return on time. In order to defend yourself against such an
adverse personnel action under H.R. 1563, you must demonstrate that
your failure to pay your taxes or file a return on time stemmed from a
``reasonable cause.''
In other words, this bill deputizes agency administrators, managers,
and foremen as bonafide tax investigators--authorizing them to examine
and determine the tax compliance status of agency employees. In
addition, H.R. 1563 essentially requires all federal workers to
affirmatively defend their failure to pay taxes or file a return on
time by requiring them to provide agency management with specific and
satisfactory reasons for their non-compliance. If you're behind on your
taxes because you went through a health care crisis and want to keep
your federal job, you're going to have to share the details of your
medical emergency with your employing agency under this bill. If you're
behind on your taxes because you're going through a divorce but still
want to keep working at your federal agency, you're going to have to
disclose the facts surrounding your divorce to your federal manager.
Now, I understand that this bill may seek to address those rare
instances where federal bad actors intentionally try to cheat on their
taxes. In practice, however, H.R. 1563 will broadly diminish the tax
privacy rights of all federal employees. That's in spite of the 97% tax
compliance rate for federal workers reported to our committee by the
I.R.S. for 2014. It's also in spite of the existing federal payment
levy program that already allows the I.R.S. to levy federal salaries
and wages in order to recover delinquent tax debts in a cost-effective
manner.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the solution to achieving 100% tax
compliance across the federal workforce is to waive the individual
privacy rights of dedicated federal workers across the board. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unfortunately, all that is in this bill is pure symbolism without any
substance, and it is very, very sad. I am disappointed to say that the
House majority seems more interested in ideology and political
messaging rather than facts and evidence.
Here are the facts. There is no problem to solve. The IRS confirmed
that they have no problem collecting delinquent taxes from Federal
employees. Federal employees have a much higher tax compliance rate
than the American public and even Members of Congress and their staffs.
CBO has estimated that implementation of this measure will actually
increase the cost to American taxpayers.
I, again, ask the question: When somebody is fired and does not have
a job, where does the money come from? The fact is that we already have
mechanisms in place to get the money. I do believe with all my heart
that this is another effort to demonize our Federal employees, and it
is very, very sad.
I urge all Members to vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here are the facts. I just love it when Washington, D.C., says, Oh,
there is no problem. We have got a hundred thousand-plus people--
Federal employees--who don't pay about $1.1 billion in taxes. That
number is up from $962 million in 2008.
The problem is getting worse, but there is one department, one
agency, where it is getting better, where it did improve, and it was in
the IRS. We should pat them on the back.
There is one fundamental thing that we changed. In a bill that was
voted on and supported by Mr. Cummings and Mr. Hoyer and the 400-plus
Members of this body, the Congress gave the ability and the authority
to the head of the IRS to terminate the employment of one of their
workers if they are not paying Federal taxes.
Guess what. Now, they have the best tax compliance rate in the
Federal Government. Let's give that same tool to the rest of the
departments and agencies.
You know what is a slap in a face to the Federal worker? When you
don't get rid of the bad apples. When you have got somebody who is
thumbing their nose, not playing by the rules, not doing what they are
supposed to be doing. Guess what. It goes into the morale of the
institution.
I think, as a Federal employee being paid by the taxpayers, one of
your fundamental responsibilities is to file and pay your Federal
taxes.
A fact: last year, we had 24,833 people who, as Federal employees,
didn't even file a return. Can we solve that? Absolutely, we can solve
that. We should require it.
When somebody goes to fill out an application, they should certify
that they are fully compliant with the taxes. If there is a hardship,
if they are in dispute over taxes owed, if their spouse gets into
problems, if they are having their wages garnished, there are all of
these outs.
Even at the finish line, based on an amendment offered by Mr. Lynch,
which we accepted, you get another 180 days to then go forward to your
administrator or whoever is leading your department and agency and say:
I am valuable; I am trying.
Still, the leader can say: Oh, you know what? I am going to give you
a waiver or allow you to continue.
If we don't give them the authority--which they have at the IRS--then
you limit the tools, and you are not getting rid of the people who are
the bad apples.
We can make sure we get the best Federal employees but weed out the
bad apples. I want to see people on both sides of the aisle say: let's
pat the back of the overwhelming majority who are patriotic, hard-
working, dedicated employees, but we are going to get rid of the bad
apples.
That is what this bill does. I urge its passage.
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 Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1563, as amended.
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. CUMMINGS. 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.
____________________