[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 62 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1900-H1905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ENSURING INTEGRITY IN THE IRS WORKFORCE ACT OF 2015

  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 688, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3724) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
prohibit the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service from rehiring 
any employee of the Internal Revenue Service who was involuntarily 
separated from service for misconduct, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 688, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in 
the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
text of Rules Committee Print 114-48, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3724

       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 ``Ensuring Integrity in the 
     IRS Workforce Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REHIRING ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL 
                   REVENUE SERVICE WHO WAS INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED 
                   FROM SERVICE FOR MISCONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Section 7804 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Prohibition on Rehiring Employees Involuntarily 
     Separated.--The Commissioner may not employ any individual 
     previously employed by the Commissioner who was removed for 
     misconduct under this subchapter or chapter 43 or chapter 75 
     of title 5, United States Code, or whose employment was 
     terminated under section 1203 of the Internal Revenue Service 
     Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (26 U.S.C. 7804 
     note).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any employee removed from 
     employment before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

       No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 
     requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act. 
     Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts 
     otherwise authorized.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. 
Noem) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to

[[Page H1901]]

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on 
H.R. 3724, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act.
  With tax day just behind us, most Americans have finished their tax 
returns. They filled out form after form, giving the IRS some of the 
most sensitive information possible, including their Social Security 
numbers, their birth dates, wage data, and more.
  In 2014, the inspector general for the IRS released a report that 
raised serious questions about whose hands this information falls into 
once it arrives at the IRS. More specifically, an audit of the agency's 
hiring practices found that the IRS rehired hundreds of former 
employees whom the IRS had previously fired because of conduct 
problems.
  And we are not talking about small infractions. The IRS rehired 
employees who had falsified documents. They failed to pay their own 
taxes. They accessed sensitive taxpayer information without permission.
  To think that someone could inappropriately access tax information, 
get fired for doing so, and then be rehired just a few months later is 
completely unacceptable. But it has happened, and it has happened more 
than once.
  These stories border on the absurd. One employee had been absent 
without leave for a total of 8 weeks worth of work. As a result, that 
employee was fired, and the words ``do not rehire'' were stamped on 
that personnel file. Still, the IRS rehired that person.
  IRS leadership has failed to acknowledge its mistakes or change its 
processes. Instead, they stuck their heads in the sand. According to 
the inspector general, the IRS' response to the report was that it 
believed its current process was good enough. Well, I don't buy it, and 
if the IRS leadership thinks its current processes are protecting 
taxpayers, they need a reality check.

                              {time}  0915

  The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act is a simple, 
bipartisan fix to a serious problem. The bill does what the IRS 
bureaucracy in Washington won't: it stops the IRS from rehiring former 
employees who had been fired for cause.
  Now, my staff and I met with numerous frontline IRS employees from 
South Dakota who are sincere and hardworking individuals. My bill is 
not aimed at them.
  This legislation is aimed at the IRS bureaucracy in Washington and is 
intended to address a very real problem that they have refused to fix.
  There is no reason that IRS leadership in Washington shouldn't be 
held to the same standard to which it holds you, the taxpayers. With 
this legislation, we can hold the IRS accountable to us for its hiring 
practices and ensure a high-quality workforce for the agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We all agree that the IRS faces serious consumer service challenges 
and needs to be more responsive to the American taxpayer, but this bill 
is not a serious attempt at oversight of the IRS.
  In fact, with respect to making the IRS more responsive to taxpayers, 
this bill is a move in the wrong direction.
  But the fact that Republicans are moving in the wrong direction on 
tax policy really shouldn't be a surprise to any of us.
  They are not only starving our entire government of the resources 
that it needs to operate efficiently for the American public, but they 
are deliberately standing in the way of actual productive policies.
  Forget real tax reform that would bring positive benefits. They 
aren't even doing anything to fix what is broken in the system today.
  For example, the Republicans refuse to crack down on large 
corporations that seek to avoid paying their fair share of taxes simply 
by changing their mailing address from the United States to a low-tax 
foreign country.
  We see these stories on TV all the time, corporations renouncing 
their American citizenship to not have to pay any--any--U.S. taxes.
  But congressional Republicans have refused to take any action to stop 
these corporate tax dodgers and the resulting offshoring of American 
jobs.
  In fact, the Republicans who run Congress have protected these 
companies not only through their refusal to act to stop these tax 
inversions, but by also refusing to repeal the tax break that 
incentivizes U.S. companies to ship jobs overseas.
  Yes, American companies can claim a tax break for firing American 
workers and moving their jobs overseas, and my Republican colleagues 
are doing nothing about that.
  The real-world effect of the Republicans' refusal to go after these 
corporations that invert themselves to avoid paying their share of 
taxes is a heavier tax burden on the rest of our honest constituents 
who are playing by the rules.
  To address this problem, the Treasury Department recently issued new 
rules to stop large corporations from simply changing their post office 
box to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  Could my constituents imagine simply changing their post office box 
address to eliminate their Federal taxes? Of course not. Because they 
can't. But somehow multinational companies, which seem to have more 
rights than American citizens, can.
  Now, you would think the American Congress would support the efforts 
of the American President to stop American companies from not paying 
the taxes here in America. But, Mr. Speaker, you would be wrong.
  The majority is threatening to stop the Treasury from advancing these 
types of commonsense rules to make multinational corporations pay their 
fair share of U.S. taxes just like everyone else.
  Wouldn't our time be better spent and served if my Republican 
colleagues held hearings--and passed bills--to stop companies from 
moving their jobs and profits overseas?
  Democrats stand ready to work with them to enact commonsense policies 
to close the loopholes in our Tax Code that encourage companies to send 
their profits and their jobs overseas.
  Unfortunately, we will have to wait for another day before the 
majority is serious about working together to make our tax system 
fairer for working people.
  But let me be clear. Americans will not wait any longer. They demand 
that we act to close these loopholes to ensure that American 
corporations don't cheat the system to try to avoid paying their fair 
share of taxes here in the United States, letting the little guy have a 
greater burden in their absence.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have a gentlemen here to speak 
on behalf of my bill who has been a strong leader in bringing integrity 
to the IRS.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, we are at a crossroads with our 
tax system. Our Tax Code is outdated, overly complicated, and the IRS 
has proven that it, in and of itself, is in need of serious reform.
  Here is an opportunity for us to work together. From the opening 
remarks of my colleague across the aisle, I am not sure if that is an 
attitude of cooperation, but certainly this is a bill we can work 
together on, I would hope.
  Our Tax Code was last updated in 1986, a generation ago. It is 
increasingly burdensome in this global 21st century economy. American 
taxpayers need a simpler code that they can easily comply with.
  Finally, they deserve an accountable and consistent IRS which 
provides exceptional taxpayer customer service. It is long past time 
for the status quo to change on these problems. We need tax reform.
  This is why I stand in support of my colleague's bill, the Ensuring 
Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act. The legislation would prohibit the 
IRS from rehiring any individual who was previously employed by the 
IRS, but fired for cause. This is inconsistent and unacceptable 
behavior from an agency which requires the highest standard of tax 
compliance from taxpayers. The IRS should apply the same rigorous 
standard inside the agency itself.

[[Page H1902]]

  Mr. Speaker, I wish we didn't need an act of Congress such as this, 
but, apparently, we do. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I have a friend and colleague here today who 
has fought daily for years for hardworking taxpayers across America and 
for his home district.
  I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Hamlin County, South Dakota, a very dear friend not only of every 
Member of Congress, but, in particular, a great Representative 
representing South Dakota at a time when South Dakota needs not only 
strong representation, but a strong voice.
  I want to thank the young Congresswoman for bringing this legislation 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, today is quite simple. The United States Congress has a 
say in the matter about how our government is run and the conduct of 
the government.
  The Internal Revenue Service has, for quite some time, been at odds, 
I believe, not only with their mission statement, but also at odds with 
their duty to publicly serve, provide information, and to do the things 
that enable taxpayers, who want to follow the law and need to follow 
the law, to comply respectfully.
  The Internal Revenue Service, over the last few years, has run afoul, 
I believe, of the American people because the commonsense obligations 
that they have have not been met.
  Today we are here on the floor with Congresswoman Noem to talk about 
H.R. 3724 that prohibits the Commissioner of the IRS from rehiring any 
employee who was involuntarily--that means forced--out or involuntarily 
separated from service for misconduct at the Internal Revenue Service.
  The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported in 
February 2015 that the IRS had rehired those employees who had been 
fired from the Service for misconduct, hundreds of former employees who 
were terminated for well-documented conduct or performance issues.
  In fact, the IRS rehired 141 former employees who had substantial tax 
issues. That means they were not paying their own tax bills.
  Mr. Speaker, if we were going to hire a person in our office, we 
would attempt to gain information about that employee.
  Yesterday, as we were talking about this on the rule, a fellow 
colleague said: What about your own employees? Do you make sure they 
pay their taxes?
  I said: That would be a good question.
  No, I don't ask that question. But I would not have any idea what the 
real answer was--the truth--if an employee did not tell me the truth.
  The IRS does have the answer. They know who is paying their taxes, 
and they know why they fired an employee, Mr. Speaker.
  We are here saying that the Internal Revenue Service should not 
rehire these employees who were unfaithful, unfaithful to their job and 
unfaithful to the American taxpayer.
  One hundred forty-one employees who substantially did not pay their 
taxes represent 60 percent of all terminated for misconduct.
  I think I know why: because the Internal Revenue Service at the 
highest levels allows this to go on, and then they rehire the employees 
who didn't even follow the law.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not just misconduct. That is another level 
giving them an opportunity that a normal taxpayer would not have to get 
away with not paying their own taxes.
  Other misconduct issues of rehiring employees include accessing 
taxpayer information improperly without authorization, falsification of 
official forms, unacceptable behavior and performance, and abuse of IRS 
leave and property policies while on public time.
  Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Noem is doing the right thing and so is 
the House of Representatives. I would like to see this be a bipartisan 
issue, not a partisan issue.
  We need the IRS. We need them to do a good job. But if this were at 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would we allow that to happen? If 
this were at the CIA, would we allow that to happen?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If this were at the Department of Justice, would we 
allow that to happen? Why is this not a bipartisan issue?
  Why can't we get together and say: Mr. Koskinen, you are the 
Commissioner of the IRS. We respectfully would like to see you correct 
what you are doing.
  We are not on a witch hunt. We have the facts of the case, and we 
believe the right thing to do is to offer some remedy.
  That is why Republicans are on the floor today, and that is why our 
young Congresswoman is leading this charge.
  I stand behind her. I voted for the rule, and I am going to vote for 
this. It does the right thing.
  I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just add to that list of the gentleman from 
Texas: If it were Congress, would we allow this to happen?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, we have another colleague here on the floor 
today who serves on the Ways and Means Committee and has diligently 
worked on IRS issues and has been a leader on bringing some clarity to 
the situations that we deal with in trying to bring integrity to the 
IRS.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3724, the Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act of 2015, a bill 
sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Representative Kristi Noem 
of South Dakota. As the previous colleague said, this should be a 
bipartisan issue. This is an American issue.
  I spent most of my life in the business world. I have owned and 
operated over 60 different businesses, employed over 3,000 people, and 
created thousands of new jobs. Throughout my 30-year business career, I 
have had the privilege of hiring many new, talented individuals.
  When it comes to hiring at the IRS, the Treasury inspector general 
stated, ``Selecting the best candidates for employment is essential to 
providing the best service to America's taxpayers, maintaining public 
trust in tax administration, and safeguarding taxpayer's rights and 
privacy.''
  However, the inspector general report from December 2014 found that 
the IRS fell short of that standard. Last year the IRS hired hundreds 
of employees who were terminated for misconduct. Those serious offenses 
included willful failure to file tax returns, unauthorized access to 
taxpayer information, falsification of official forms, and abuse of IRS 
leave and property policies.

                              {time}  0930

  As a businessman, but more importantly as a representative of the 
American taxpayer, I find this IG report inexcusable. It seems obvious 
to me, but not once did I rehire someone in the real world--in the real 
world--who I had previously fired for misconduct.
  The IRS needs to earn the trust of hardworking American taxpayers. 
Rehiring employees who were fired for these serious offenses further 
erodes that trust.
  H.R. 3724 directly addresses this issue. It prohibits the IRS from 
rehiring employees that were fired for misconduct. This is common 
sense.
  As a former businessowner, I know it is a very difficult decision to 
let someone go, but rehiring an individual who was asked to leave due 
to gross misconduct would be insulting to other employees who have 
faithfully served the business, and would present a significant risk to 
the health of the organization and its customers.
  The IG report found the IRS doesn't take those risks seriously. In 
fact, ``IRS officials stated that prior conduct and performance issues 
do not play a significant role in deciding the candidates who are best 
qualified for hiring.'' Because the IRS hasn't taken

[[Page H1903]]

those risks seriously, this straightforward, commonsense legislation is 
needed to restore accountability and trust in the IRS.
  I would like to commend Mrs. Noem for her leadership on this 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
support.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that America will have to continue to wait 
for action to stop companies from shifting American jobs overseas and 
stopping corporate tax dodgers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3724.
  I would think as we look around the country right now, the integrity 
of what our government is and how our voters are represented and our 
citizens are represented, is really the case here.
  I thank the gentlewoman for bringing such a commonsense piece of 
legislation forward because we know in this town there is nothing less 
common than common sense.
  The faith and trust of the American people is based on their belief 
that the people who work for them are acting in their best interest, 
always acting in their best interest--the interest of the American 
people. Not in their personal interest, but in the interest of the 
American people. We find out that there are folks who are working on 
behalf of the American people, but they have somehow betrayed that 
faith and that trust. And folks have lost confidence in their 
government. They have lost confidence because of things that happened, 
not things that were imagined, not some whimsical idea that somehow we 
can get at somebody for doing this.
  There is no agency that is feared more in this country than the IRS. 
The question is: Why would they be so feared? Because they can 
completely shut you down, they can freeze your bank account, they can 
make you stay up late at night worrying about what is going to happen.
  When you get that letter from the IRS, the next thing you do is 
contact an attorney to represent you because you don't want to make a 
mistake, you just don't want to do it. But then you find out that 
within the IRS, people working for that agency, but, more importantly, 
working for the people of the United States, have violated that trust.
  These are substantiated results. This is not somebody's idea or way 
of getting back at somebody. This is removing bad apples and saying: 
you have violated, you have betrayed the trust of the American people, 
you are going to leave the agency, but, more importantly, you are never 
coming back in.
  This isn't any way to somehow get back at a political party or get 
back at anybody. This is a fact that if we cannot restore the 
confidence the American people have in us--their faith and their 
trust--why are we here? Why do we go through elections?
  I don't come here to represent my ideas and my beliefs. I come here 
to represent the values and beliefs of Pennsylvania's Third 
Congressional District. That is 705,687 Americans, not Republicans, not 
Democrats, not Libertarians, not Independents, but Americans.
  This piece of legislation takes into account that these are 
wrongdoers. These are not people who we want to associate ourselves 
with. These are people who have used the power of their office or of 
their position to somehow work against the very people who employ them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I would just say, at this moment in our 
history, I thank the gentlewoman for standing up for every hardworking 
American taxpayer and doing the best we can to restore the faith and 
confidence of the American people that they can trust who it is that 
they elect to represent them and they can trust us to make sure that 
wrongdoers are punished and, once are asked to leave, are not allowed 
to come back in.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 24\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from South Dakota has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mrs. Noem and her drive to 
address this very important issue.
  I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people who work at 
the IRS are good, hardworking, patriotic people who want to do the 
right thing. I have a serious problem with management and I have a 
serious problem with the head of the IRS, but on this issue, this is 
just unbelievable that we can't come to a conclusive and absolute 100 
percent agreement.
  All we are asking for is that the bad apples, the people who will 
disturb what is going on in the workplace, who aren't going to act in 
the best interest of the United States of America, that they be 
excluded from participation.
  One of the things that is fascinating, Mr. Speaker, as we look at 
this, is in response to the independent review that was done of the IRS 
and their hiring practices. And the question here is: Should we go back 
and review the personnel employment file prior to rehiring somebody?
  This is what they said: ``Additionally, while it did find that a 
review of performance and conduct issues could be accomplished earlier 
in the process, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Personnel 
Management, and the Internal Revenue Service believed that it was not 
feasible to move the review of these issues earlier in the hiring 
process. This action would greatly increase the cost of hiring, likely 
increase cycle time beyond the Presidential mandate of 80 days, require 
additional resources, and not likely yield a reasonable return on 
investment.''

  Come on. Come on. Are you kidding me? How long could it possibly take 
to actually go back and review somebody's performance reviews, look 
back at their employment history, and see if they have been acting in 
the best interest of the United States of America?
  Clearly, in the examples that are there, there are people that 
willfully don't even file their own tax returns, there are people that 
are doing some bad, stupid stuff.
  They don't think they have the time and resources to look at it in 
advance; we have to actually pass a piece of legislation requiring 
this?
  That seems entirely reasonable. It is not overly burdensome. Here you 
have an organization, the IRS, that can actually destroy somebody's 
life by a mere letter showing up in your mailbox, and they can't even 
take the time to look at somebody's employment history, somebody who 
has already worked at the IRS?
  That is how absurd this organization is, and that is why this piece 
of legislation is so easy to understand, it is so easy to vote for. It 
is not a partisan issue. This is just saying: Do you know what? For all 
the good people who work at the IRS, let's make sure that the new 
people who come on, or the rehires who come on, in this case, are 
actually addressed and we look at their information prior to hiring.
  It is that simple. That is why I am in favor of this bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I am still waiting for a bill to keep American jobs in America and 
not export them overseas through the Tax Code. I will continue to wait 
for that bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about a bill that will 
bring integrity to the IRS, which will better serve our taxpayers into 
the future.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota for her leadership in bringing this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about restoring trust. This bill is about 
holding the IRS accountable. Here we are, in a week where Americans had 
to file their tax returns. And so often, just the letters I-R-S send a 
chilling effect through people when they hear those

[[Page H1904]]

letters. Yet, you look at the arrogance over at the IRS, just the 
attitude that they have and the disdain it seems that they have towards 
the very people who pay their bills--the taxpayers.
  Here you have a case where people who have been fired by the IRS for 
abusing their positions are actually being rehired back to the IRS. 
Again, this is the kind of disdain that disgusts people as they fear 
the IRS. The IRS ought to have the same fear towards the people who pay 
their salaries as people get when they get that letter from the IRS.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had inspector general reports in the Treasury 
Department. The inspector general found over 140 IRS agents aren't even 
accurate in their taxes. The very people who are responsible for 
auditing American citizens aren't even paying their own taxes.
  This is the kind of disregard for the American people that we are 
seeing over at the IRS, and it is time to rein it in. It is time to 
bring some accountability and transparency back to the IRS.
  Who is afraid of that? What is so wrong with saying: If somebody has 
been fired for cause over at the IRS, with the access they have to such 
sensitive personal information of taxpayers, why should they be rehired 
back?
  It is just basic common sense that if somebody has abused their 
position at the IRS, enough is enough, and they shouldn't be able to 
return and have access to that sensitive information anymore.
  I want to applaud, again, the gentlewoman from South Dakota for 
bringing this commonsense bill forward. I would urge adoption later on 
when we have this vote on the House floor.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my 
friend from South Dakota for her leadership in holding the IRS 
accountable for what we are seeing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3724, the 
Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act, to join in the outrage 
with my colleagues today on what we are seeing at the IRS. With tax day 
hitting earlier this week, I think this is an ideal time to highlight 
the need for continued oversight and, perhaps, ramped-up oversight of 
the Internal Revenue Service.
  Last February, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 
reported that the IRS had a tendency to rehire former employees with 
serious misconduct and performance issues. In their review, they found 
more than 100 former employees were rehired by the IRS despite having 
significant performance and misconduct problems, like willfully failing 
to file tax returns: a rather important thing for most of us, but 
apparently not for IRS employees.
  Mr. Speaker, the families in my district and I are 100 percent fed up 
with adhering to a standard that the IRS doesn't even hold their own 
employees to. We simply will not tolerate the rehiring of incompetent 
individuals who fail to do their job in the first place. It is time to 
put a leash on the IRS and prevent taxpayers from further double 
standards and further abuse.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 3724.
  Again, I thank my colleague from South Dakota for her excellent 
leadership on this. I look forward to open debate and voting on this 
matter as soon as possible.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  No disrespect to the sponsor of this bill whatsoever. I have great 
admiration for her, as she knows, but I believe that this bill could 
have been taken up on the consent calendar, quite frankly, with all of 
this discussion about the support on both sides.
  The reality is, though, that we are using precious time here on the 
floor on an issue that, as I say, could have been on the consent 
calendar. We are not addressing the real issue of concern to the 
American people, which is of the continuing loss of jobs here in 
America because of our Tax Code, which we refuse to fix, that is 
shifting jobs and American corporations overseas to inversion and also 
shifting American jobs overseas because of those inversions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not having a hearing on this. We are not doing 
anything here on the floor to address this issue. Instead, we are 
taking up issues that, quite frankly, could have been on the consent 
calendar.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am 
ready to close.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I believe this should be the beginning and not the end of a 
discussion on how to best plug the giant corporate loopholes that are 
allowing companies to skip out on paying the same taxes that all of our 
constituents have to pay. This is one of the many major issues this 
Congress should undertake; but, instead, we are all too busy governing 
by press releases.
  This Congress has done nothing to address the Zika virus, which could 
be a threat to all women who are pregnant or who are looking to become 
pregnant; but we have this consent bill here on the floor for debate.
  This Congress has done nothing to address the crisis of lead in our 
drinking water--a crisis vividly on display in Flint but one that lurks 
in the pipes of hundreds of cities and towns across our great land; yet 
we have this consent bill here on the calendar for debate.
  This Congress hasn't even attempted to pass a budget for our 
country--the majority has not proposed a budget for our country--which 
is one of the most basic functions we can do as an institution to make 
sure we make the necessary investments possible while also getting our 
economic house in order; yet we have what I would consider to be a 
consent calendar bill here on the floor today, taking up an hour's 
debate.
  But we will always have time for message bills. Sure, they don't 
create a job for an unemployed person in New York or in Flint or in 
Houston or in L.A., and they don't increase the take-home pay of any 
underpaid worker or make college more affordable for middle class kids 
or strengthen Social Security for our seniors of today and tomorrow, 
but they will sound great on talk radio tonight and over the weekend--
we are going after the IRS again. They don't even deal with the Tax 
Code even though this bill is advertised as the Republicans' idea of 
tax reform. It does not reform the Tax Code in any way, shape, or form, 
but that is what they portray it as.
  Let me explain something about the Tax Code to my Republican 
colleagues.
  Our Tax Code is inefficient. You see that when large corporations are 
paying less tax than the employees who work for them. It is overly 
complicated. You see that when multinational corporations avoid paying 
the same taxes as our constituents back home have to pay simply by 
their hiring expensive lawyers that our constituents, quite frankly, 
cannot afford. It is unfair. You see that when corporations can dodge 
paying their fair share of taxes by simply switching their post office 
boxes to foreign countries--something our neighbors back home, if they 
attempted to do, would be arrested for, for tax evasion, but not 
corporations. Individuals, if you do that, you are arrested for tax 
evasion, but not an American corporation; yet my Republican colleagues 
continue to refuse to address this issue.
  Maybe more importantly than anything else, it does not promote job 
growth here in the United States. You see this when Congress refuses to 
repeal the tax breaks for companies to fire their workers here and move 
their jobs overseas.
  This Congress must tackle these serious issues, but we are not doing 
that today. We continue to wait for legislation--for a hearing--on 
these important issues.
  Democrats stand ready to work with you all, my Republican colleagues, 
on commonsense legislation that plugs the corporate tax loopholes that 
are literally draining the funds our country needs in order to function 
properly. Democrats stand ready to work with you to fix the Tax Code 
that is not only inefficient, not only complicated, not

[[Page H1905]]

only unfair, but that does not promote job growth here in the United 
States. That is something we want to work with you on in a bipartisan 
way. Unfortunately, we have to continue to wait for another day before 
the majority is serious about working together, in a bipartisan way, to 
make our tax system fairer for all working men and women in the United 
States. Let me be clear, once again, that the American people will not 
wait any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard repeatedly from my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle about why we should not be spending time on this topic today, 
about why we shouldn't have dedicated an hour's worth of debate to 
making sure that we talk about H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS 
Workforce Act.
  I think he has forgotten about what kind of information the people of 
this country turn over to the IRS. They turn over their Social Security 
numbers, their financial information; a lot of the security that they 
have for their families, their homes, and their businesses they 
completely trust the IRS to take care of, to protect, and to make sure 
that they use in the correct manner so that they might abide by the law 
and pay their taxes like honest, hardworking Americans do. To say that 
we shouldn't spend time in making sure that criminals and people who 
are fired for misconduct don't have access to that information, to me, 
is silly. That is exactly what our job is. The IRS needs integrity, and 
we are here to bring it today.
  Mr. Speaker, the White House has issued a veto threat against this 
bill. They said that the IRS would be forced to fire people, because of 
this bill, if it were signed into law. I read the White House's 
Statement of Administration Policy on my bill, and the statement reads 
that it is unnecessary because current IRS processes already ensure 
that the agency does not rehire former employees who have significant 
conduct issues.
  I guess the White House didn't read the report, for the inspector 
general expressed concerns that the IRS continues to hire individuals 
who have significant prior conduct and performance issues even after 
the agency supposedly made upgrades to its hiring practices.
  I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the inspector general's review of 
former employees who were fired for serious misconduct and who were 
then rehired included employees with histories of fraud, a 
falsification of documents, workplace disruption, absence, and an 
unauthorized accessing of taxpayer information. The inspector general 
identified approximately 140 individuals who are currently, today, with 
the IRS who had been previously fired for cause. We are talking about 
an agency that employs 80,000 people. Surely, it can find 140 people 
who haven't committed fraud or falsified documents.
  Mr. Speaker, the inspector general recommended that the IRS reassess 
its hiring practices to determine in what part of the process it should 
fully vet candidates in terms of their prior performance. In fact, the 
IRS was given an opportunity to fully respond to the inspector 
general's report. In its response, the agency insisted its processes 
were sufficient. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the agency still only begins to vet 
the candidates for employment only after the entire hiring process is 
completed and after a formal offer of employment has been extended. So, 
regardless of any changes the IRS has made to its hiring practices, the 
inspector general said he remains very concerned because IRS documents 
indicate it is hiring individuals who have significant prior conduct 
and performance issues.
  Mr. Speaker, because the IRS hasn't taken action is why we are here 
today. This bill is simple. It just says that the IRS cannot rehire 
employees who have been fired for misconduct. It is something the IRS 
should have taken action on; and because they didn't, that is why we 
are here today. It is our job to protect the taxpayers and to make sure 
their information is safe with the agency that they, by law, need to 
turn over to the IRS.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 688, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. NOEM. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________