[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5207-5213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2013

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 249) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for 
Federal employment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 249

       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 2013''.

     SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT 
                   TAX DEBTS 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 PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT 
                    TAX DEBTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT

     ``Sec. 7381. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) the term `seriously delinquent tax debt' means an 
     outstanding debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for 
     which a notice of lien has been filed in public records 
     pursuant to section 6323 of such Code, 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 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 a levy issued under such 
     section); and
       ``(D) a debt with respect to which relief under section 
     6343(a)(1)(D) of such Code is granted;
       ``(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 person 
     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 person 
     applying for employment with such agency shall be required to 
     submit (as part of the application for employment) 
     certification that such person 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 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 made pursuant to subsection (c)(3).

[[Page 5208]]



     ``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 (as 
     described in section 7381(1)) has been filed 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 the employee or applicant has a seriously 
     delinquent tax debt; and
       ``(2) contact the Secretary of the Treasury to request tax 
     information limited to describing whether the employee or 
     applicant has a seriously delinquent tax debt.
       ``(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.''.
       (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 PERSONS HAVING SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT 
                    TAX DEBTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT

``7381. Definitions.
``7382. Ineligibility for employment.
``7383. Review of public records.
``7384. Confidentiality.''.

     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 
California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend Mr. Chaffetz. Like 
the last piece of legislation, Mr. Chaffetz reintroduces a bill that 
passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress but was not taken up by the 
Senate. As Mr. Chaffetz said, it is in fact time for the Senate to at 
least give us an up-or-down vote on this legislation. By bringing it 
early in the Congress and, I believe, all these bills on a bipartisan 
basis, we make it clear that we want to hold ourselves to the standard 
that the taxpayers believe we should.
  All Federal employees are currently held for paying their taxes by 
the code of ethics of the executive branch. So how can someone who, by 
the code of ethics, in fact not have satisfied in good faith their 
obligations as citizens, including all financial obligations, 
especially those to the Federal, State, and local taxes that are 
imposed by law, how can somebody who in fact hasn't done it and has 
reached a point of garnishment, reached a point at which they are 
unwilling to pay their just taxes, have no appeals or any pending, how 
can they in fact continue to expect to be Federal employees? The truth 
is these employees have given up any question about their ethics by 
avoiding it.
  Before going further, I would like to have the Speaker take note that 
in fact for us, as Federal employees, our withholding is already taken 
out of our taxes. So to become seriously in arrears in our taxes, for 
the most part, has to do with activities outside our role. We're well 
insured for health care. Our taxes have already been withheld. So 
although there are occasions in which a taxpayer may find themselves 
seriously in arrears for some reason otherwise, this bill intends and 
has carefully crafted every possible exception so they could continue 
to work if, in fact, reasonable measures have been taken by the 
employee. In fact, if an employee simply agrees to be garnished for 
past taxes, pursuant to the law, they in fact can continue to work.
  So I'd like to preface by saying this bill has passed before and has 
been well thought out. We in fact sent a letter to IRS asking them for 
a timely response. And to my dismay, they were not interested enough to 
respond to us by the deadline. Of course, the deadline for responding 
really was in the last Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As one who represents many Federal employees, with the Social 
Security Administration smack dab in the middle of my district, with 
many of my constituents getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning, 
catching the train over here from Howard County and Baltimore County to 
work for the Federal Government, a group of people, many of whom are 
being subjected now to furloughs, have been subjected to pay freezes, 
in some instances have been placed in a position where they have to pay 
more toward their pensions and get less, a group of people who in many 
instances I run into them at the gas station, at the Pancake House, or 
wherever I may see them, who are very much concerned about a word that 
has become a significant word in this House, ``uncertainty.'' I 
strongly oppose H.R. 249, a measure that would require the Federal 
Government to fire--to fire--Federal employees who have an outstanding 
tax debt. The legislation is unwarranted, unnecessary and, in fact, 
counterproductive.
  I believe that Federal employees, like all Americans, should pay 
their taxes, and I don't think that there's one single Member of this 
Congress that feels otherwise. We all believe that Federal employees 
and all folks who owe taxes ought to pay them. Federal workers hold the 
public trust and should be held to a high standard of conduct. The fact 
is that Federal employees have met and exceeded that standard.
  The legislation is unwarranted because the tax delinquency rate for 
Federal employees is less than half that of the general public. In 
2011, the tax delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent. 
In the same year, the tax delinquency rate for Federal workers was only 
3.62 percent. Now, let me make it clear: I would suggest that it would 
be best--and wonderful--if that percentage was zero, but it's not. But 
again, the general delinquency rate, 8.2 percent; Federal workers, 3.62 
percent.
  The legislation is unnecessary because the IRS and other executive 
agencies already have procedures in place to recover back taxes from 
Federal employees. Through the Federal Payment and Levy Program, the 
IRS can impose a continuous levy on Federal salaries and annuities up 
to 15 percent until the debt is paid. Agencies also have the authority 
to take disciplinary action against employees for delinquent tax debts, 
which may include removal, if necessary.
  The legislation is counterproductive because it would make it more 
difficult to collect unpaid taxes from Federal employees by requiring 
their termination and eliminating the ability to impose levies on their 
salaries.
  On another note, I just left, about 3 hours ago, a job fair that I 
sponsored in my district where 9,000 unemployed people showed up. In 
talking to some of the various agencies, they said, Congressman 
Cummings, we're glad that the State of Maryland is now dealing with 
child support issues a little bit differently because we used to take

[[Page 5209]]

everybody's license. We would make it almost impossible for them to 
make money so that they could pay the child support. They said now 
we're beginning to turn some of those laws around because, again, we 
want to be effective and efficient in collecting the money. Here, if a 
person has no job, how are they going to pay their taxes?
  I am also concerned that this legislation is being rushed to the 
floor today to apparently make a political point. During committee 
debate over the legislation, questions were raised. To his credit, the 
chairman agreed that we would try to get some responses from the IRS 
about the rules and procedures regarding debt collection, options for 
resolving delinquencies, payment options, tax delinquencies of IRS 
employees, and other issues. The chairman promised to obtain the 
answers to these questions from the IRS and to work with Democrats 
before the bill was brought to the floor.
  Now, I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS failed to do what they 
were supposed to do; they did not give us the information. But there 
was a reason that we wanted that information. We wanted the information 
so that we could base our decisions on sound facts. If we are placing 
people in a position where they will lose their way of feeding their 
family and having a roof over their head and taking care of their kids, 
it would be nice to have information.
  I tell my staff all the time: Give me the information so that I can 
make a decent decision. We don't have that information, and that is 
unfortunate. Hopefully, at some point, we will get it from the IRS. 
Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the chairman. He did his part. He 
submitted his letter. I know he did, but we still have not heard from 
the IRS. So on April 4, 2013, I joined with Chairman Issa in sending 
that letter to the IRS, requesting specific information that the 
committee members agreed was necessary to fairly and fully evaluate the 
need for this legislation.
  Again, without this information, it is unclear whether various 
scenarios under which taxpayer disputes of tax debt would be exempted 
under the bill. For example, it is unclear whether an appeal from a 
collection due process hearing, litigation proceedings in U.S. Tax 
Court, or hearings under the IRS' Collection Appeals Program would 
trigger an exemption.
  Contrary to the chairman's assurances, the Republican leadership has 
insisted on bringing this bill to the floor without the benefit of this 
information and without resolving the many concerns raised during the 
committee debate. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against this bill.
  Again, we need information, but more importantly, there is something 
that the chairman said that I think we need to be clear on. I want to 
see, again, a situation where everybody pays every dime that they are 
supposed to pay, but I don't think that people get fired if they're not 
Federal employees when they have a tax delinquency. So when we're 
talking about fairness, again, we're talking about the Federal 
employee, and then we're talking about everybody else.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. And I would take note 
that this afternoon the IRS did offer to speak to us over the phone but 
had no answers in writing, which continues to befuddle me a little bit 
that we can't get answers. I will continue to work with the ranking 
member to get those answers.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank Chairman Issa, Speaker Boehner, and Leader 
Cantor for their support in allowing us to bring this piece of 
legislation, a piece of legislation that has come before this body 
before. This is not a new topic. This is not something that just sprung 
up with us in the last 10 days here.
  Mr. Speaker, on tax day, 2013, I want to impress upon my colleagues 
that Federal employees who consciously ignore the channels and 
processes in place to fulfill their tax obligations must be held 
accountable. The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act addresses 
noncompliance with our tax laws by prohibiting individuals with serious 
delinquent tax debt from Federal civilian employment.
  Most taxpayers file accurate tax returns and pay them on time. Most 
Federal workers do that--the overwhelming majority of them do it. In 
fact, statistically, more than 96 percent of our Federal employees do 
the right thing and they do it on time. But, unfortunately, there are a 
few bad apples out there. There are a few people out there that, 
despite all the processes, all the appeals, all the things out there, 
Mr. Speaker, they still choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us. 
Unfortunately, there are 107,000 Federal workers who don't pay their 
taxes. It accounts for about $1 billion in uncollected taxes.
  In 2011--the most recent year for which the IRS data is available--
they tell us that 107,658 civilian Federal employees owed more than $1 
billion. Now, the statistics say they have a greater compliance than 
the rest of the public. But let's remember, when you're unemployed, 
you're probably going to have a hard time complying. Employment for 
those that are Federal workers is 100 percent. They have a job. They 
have a responsibility to pay their taxes.
  As the chairman indicated, the intent of the bill is simple: if 
you're a Federal employee or applicant, you should be making a good 
faith effort to pay your taxes or to dispute them, as the taxpayers 
have a right to do.
  Under H.R. 249, individuals having seriously delinquent tax debts are 
ineligible for Federal civilian employment in the executive and 
legislative branch, including congressional staff. ``Seriously tax 
delinquent'' is defined as an outstanding Federal tax debt for which a 
notice of lien has been publicly filed.

                              {time}  1800

  And there are exemptions. If you're being paid in accordance with an 
installment agreement, perhaps you're having your wages garnished, you 
have an offer of compromise, or wage garnishment, you're exempted; it's 
not going to affect you.
  The IRS has already told us on the record when they testified in a 
hearing that the overwhelming majority of the 107,000 people fall 
within that category. They testified to the body in the last Congress 
that roughly 12 percent of the 100,000 people would fall into this 
category that we're here talking about today. We've had a hearing about 
this. We did ask the IRS about this.
  I also want to note, Mr. Speaker, on page 4 of the legislation at 
(c)(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.

  There's an opportunity to have the person who's in charge to make a 
determination: Do you know what? I have looked at this, and I grant 
this person an exemption.
  But, as I did when I spoke to a group of HR professionals who work 
within the Federal Government, I told them about this and said, You 
need some tools to take care of the bad apples. I could see every one 
of their heads shaking, yes, please, give us this tool.
  The bill requires individuals applying for Federal jobs to certify 
they are not seriously tax delinquent. Agencies will also conduct 
periodic reviews of public records for tax liens. Individuals with 
serious delinquent tax debt may avail themselves to existing due 
process rights, including going before the Merit Systems Protection 
Board.
  In fact, in the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch, who's as 
passionate on this issue as you can possibly find, offered some 
amendments. And let me read from the Record when we accepted the 
amendment offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts:

       Mr. Lynch. With that refinement here, a friendly amendment, 
     I certainly would vote for the bill if the amendment were 
     included.

  The amendment was included. We did this in a bipartisan way. That's 
why it sailed through the House of Representatives last time and why it 
should sail through again.

[[Page 5210]]

  In addition, individuals have 6 months to demonstrate that their tax 
debt is not seriously delinquent--something that Mr. Lynch asked for, 
something we agreed with, something that we move forward with.
  For many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this 
legislation should sound familiar because we did pass it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Actually, at this time, what I would like to do is 
yield back and respond based on the other comments.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friends, the 
chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee, that we were 
doing so well in the last few bills showing how bipartisan our 
committees could be. And I mean that sincerely, because the committee 
has been working in a very bipartisan way, particularly this year.
  As I indicated in my prior remarks, there is not perfect symmetry 
between employees and contractors. Here is one of the examples where we 
do not have that symmetry.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in ``lead by example.'' I think 
that applies to Members of Congress, and I believe the Federal 
employees believe that applies to them. Why else would they have a 
delinquency rate less than half the tax delinquency rate of other 
Americans? They know they are a unique workforce.
  Here is a workforce that has already stepped up front beyond the 
American people. They are the ones who were the first to sacrifice for 
the deficit, and they keep sacrificing, now in the 3rd year of a freeze 
and a sequester on top of it.
  Why would we pick them out for any other purpose except a symbolic 
purpose, which is what I see here? It's not lost on any of us, Mr. 
Speaker, that today is April 15. I suppose this is a bill to make sure 
everybody understands that we understand it's April 15. I understand 
entirely the importance of symbolic moves. I put out a release myself 
today on taxation without representation.
  But here we have the best workforce in the United States, the most 
specialized, and the workforce that has given more than any of us.
  I have a serious legal problem with this bill. This bill defines a 
``seriously delinquent'' Federal worker as one against whom there is 
``notice of a lien which has been publicly filed.'' Mr. Speaker, a 
notice of lien is a claim by the claimant, in this case, the United 
States. The answer may come, of course, as to any claim in our legal 
system from the defendant.
  Here, on the basis of the claim alone, we are going so far as to 
allow even the employee to be fired, this at a time when Americans, 
including Federal employees, have had the worst hardships since the 
Great Depression, including homes under water and all the rest of it. 
It's just not necessary. If they have the best tax record in the United 
States, why then would they be picked out?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize that the IRS already 
has special procedures to recover taxes from its own employees, and I 
commend the IRS for that, including, by the way, being able to garnish 
their wages up to 15 percent and even to take disciplinary actions. Why 
would we need anything further, particularly at this moment in time, 
against our Federal employees who have endured so much?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I join with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia in 
applauding what the IRS has done. The IRS effectively gave itself the 
rules that Mr. Chaffetz would like to have all Federal civilian workers 
living under.
  The IRS has a delinquency rate now of 1 percent. So if you take a 
fraction of that 1 percent that could possibly be out of compliance for 
a short period of time, and that's what happens. You've lowered the 
overall rate from, for example, the Government Printing Office, 7.6 
percent; the 316,000 people at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
13,000 of them, or 4.3 percent, are seriously in arrears.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady is absolutely right: the IRS did the 
right thing, and it worked. You've got a compliance rate down to 1 
percent failure, or 99 percent positive compliance rate.
  For all the Federal workers who are listening carefully because this 
could affect them, they're looking to their left and their right 
endlessly wondering who these deadbeats are because, in all cases, it's 
below 10 percent, and at the IRS at 1 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the case for this legislation is made by the IRS's 
success, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I adopt the remarks that were made by Ms. Norton. The 
delinquency rate of Federal employees is far below what it is for other 
employees on a general level throughout this country. I adopt the 
gentlelady's remarks that, yes, this is April 15, and my own staff has 
said, oh, I had to pay this, that, or the other.
  The implication here is that we brought a bill dealing with Federal 
employees this day. Why? Because Federal employees are very easy to 
target. For people who don't like government: Well, the Federal 
employees, look at what they're doing. You're having to pay your taxes 
today before those deadbeat Federal employees. That's the message here.
  Now, if this were a problem that you really wanted to deal with, it 
wouldn't have to be April 15. It could have been February 15 or it 
could be June 15. But, no, that's not the message here.

                              {time}  1810

  The message is that somehow Federal employees need to be targeted. I 
understand they work for us, and so they're easy to get at. And we are 
getting at them almost every week. We're furloughing them. We're 
suggesting they pay more, that they're not paying enough for 
retirement. We are suggesting that somehow they're less than stellar 
employees.
  But before I conclude, let me take a second look at this.
  We had a tragic event happen in Boston today, and the President was 
quick to call Governor Deval Patrick and say we're going to send some 
Federal employees from the FBI, the ATF, and other agencies to make 
sure that we look at this and protect America.
  We extend our sympathies, of course, to all the victims and their 
families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. We express our sympathies to all of them, and we recognize 
that they have some employees in Boston and around this country at the 
municipal and State level, and, yes, at the Federal level, who are 
going to try to respond and make sure America is safe.
  Let's send a message to those Federal employees, because they're our 
employees, that we respect them, their contribution. Let us not bring a 
bill to the floor--by the way, the gentleman is correct that it passed 
here not with my vote last year, because I thought it was a message 
that was incorrect. I thought that there were processes in place today 
which allow us to act against those, yes, who are tax delinquents. But 
very frankly, this is not a discussion today about huge tax 
delinquents, huge tax frauds, people who are not paying taxes to this 
country in which they're being so successful.
  So, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we send our regrets to those who have 
been the

[[Page 5211]]

subject of a terrorist act, whether it was a domestic terrorist, a 
foreign terrorist, but a terrorist act this day.
  Secondly, we say to those Federal employees who time after time, week 
after week, month after month are being disparaged by their board of 
directors, that we understand the quality of their service and 
contribution. And, yes, we understand there are some who don't do what 
they ought to do, and we demand that they do so, but this is not the 
way to do it.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to do too much responding to 
something that asks why something was brought on April 15, except to 
say that the minority was very happy to have us bring on April 15 
something to hold contractors responsible on tax day for taxes, and we 
thought appropriate that both should be about this tax day in which 99 
percent of Americans have paid all their taxes, whether they like to or 
not, and a small percentage have not.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, DC, can we say that this is not a 
serious issue. We're talking about 107,000 people and a billion dollars 
in uncollected taxes when the very Americans that are paying their 
paychecks are writing out their checks.
  I would also look at the companion piece of legislation, which is $5 
billion, that deals with the contractors. What we're saying to the 
employees of the Federal Government--the men and women who are 
patriotic, who are doing their job; they're doing the right thing; they 
work hard; they love this country; they're the first ones to run and 
respond--we're going to take care of you; we've got your back. Because 
every once in a while there is a bad apple, there is somebody that 
works in that department, there is somebody that works in that agency 
who doesn't play by the rules like everybody else does. They give this 
country and they give their counterparts and their employees a bad 
name. We're going to stand up for them by giving that head of that 
department in the agency the opportunity to fire somebody if they don't 
comply.
  Pay your Federal taxes, you're in good shape; don't pay your Federal 
taxes, don't put yourself in place, then we're going to give you an 
opportunity to be let go.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249, the 
Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2013.
  On close examination, it is obvious that this bill is deceptive, 
unnecessary, and even counterproductive. It's a bill that puts 
additional requirements on Federal workers that the rest of the public 
does not face: that of losing their job because of a tax lien. On top 
of this, common sense will tell you it's a very difficult thing to 
collect taxes or any debt from somebody who doesn't have a job.
  The IRS already has procedures in place to collect back taxes from 
Federal employees. The Federal Payment Levy Program allows the IRS to 
impose a continuous levy on Federal, and only Federal, employees up to 
15 percent. This means Federal employees already are held to a higher 
standard and the IRS already has additional weapons in its arsenal, 
making the bill before us an over-the-top and punitive measure.
  It's a solution without a real problem and a solution that will only 
make it harder to actually collect taxes. And I question whether this 
is a sincere effort to improve our Nation or just another in a long 
series of unfair attacks on Federal employees and the unions that 
represent them. These are people who haven't had a raise in 3 years. 
These are people for whom many are receiving furlough notices even as 
we speak. These are people that now we're attacking in a new and better 
way.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest at some point you wonder how we're supposed to 
attract talented and capable individuals to come to work for us when we 
treat them like this.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the bill.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to harken back to the comments of 
President Obama on January 20, 2010.
  Make no mistake; the President was talking about delinquent 
contractors, not specifically about Federal workers. But I want you, as 
you listen to the President, in his own words, to wonder why should--
these, too, are families. Contractors are families; they're Americans; 
they're people. Some of them are bad apples. Most of them do a good 
job.
  But listen to the President as he's talking about contractors, and 
say: Should the same be true for Federal workers?
  Quote, from President Obama:

       All across this country, there are people who meet their 
     obligation each and every day. You do your jobs; you support 
     your families; you pay taxes you owe because it's a 
     fundamental responsibility of citizenship. And yet, somehow, 
     it's become standard practice in Washington to give contracts 
     to companies that don't pay their taxes.

  Later on, the President said:

       The status quo, then, is inefficiency, and it's wasteful by 
     the larger and more fundamental point that it is wrong. It is 
     simply wrong for companies to take taxpayer dollars and not 
     be taxpayers themselves. So we need to insist on the same 
     sense of responsibility in Washington that so many of you 
     strive to uphold in your own lives, in your own families and 
     your own businesses.

  The same should be true for Federal workers. And when those Federal 
workers are giving out those Federal contracts by the hundreds of 
billions of dollars, let them be able to look people in the face and 
say, We hold ourselves to that same high standard. We're not having a 
separate standard for contractors and for you. Those of us that do work 
for the Federal Government are honest in our dealings. We pay our 
taxes. You know what? If we don't around here, they eventually fire us.
  That seems to me to be common sense and the right approach.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249.
  This bill would bar individuals who work for the Federal Government 
and who have a tax lien from being employed by the Federal Government. 
I agree with Congressman Chaffetz and the supporters of this bill that 
all citizens, including our Federal employees, should pay their taxes. 
However, this bill is far more focused on attacking Federal employees 
than on actually resolving problems. This bill, H.R. 249, is a 
political document, not a policy solution.
  The IRS says that the tax delinquency rate for our Federal employees 
is half that of the average American taxpayer. This legislation is the 
wrong approach and is destined to be grossly ineffective because it 
makes collecting outstanding taxes difficult--by firing the very people 
we'd like to pay their taxes. As a former business owner myself, in 
putting people into homes, I used to find out time after time that the 
IRS would violate their agreement. It's the IRS that violates the 
agreement sometimes when somebody says, I'll pay it on a regular basis, 
and the IRS changes that agreement without notice. That will and does 
happen to employees all the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from California is new, and I'm sure he did not mean to 
disparage our intention.
  Our intention was, in fact, to bring accountability and, in fact, a 
sense of pride to the Federal workforce, one in

[[Page 5212]]

which 96-point-some percent do pay their taxes, and of the remaining 
ones who do not, the vast majority has made arrangements to deal with 
taxes in arrears.
  But, Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, I had my house robbed. I live 
in a low-crime neighborhood. Less than 2 percent of the homes get 
robbed in a given year, but the police still responded and still said, 
I'll do something about your home being burglarized.
  All we're saying here is: let's stop talking about the 97 percent who 
do the right thing, and let's deal with those who do not in a way that 
encourages them, like the IRS has, to start doing the right thing and 
lower that failure rate to 1 percent or less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the ranking member.
  Let me just be very specific. Mr. Chaffetz, at one point, said we 
have a few bad apples, and the chairman suggested, Well, who are these 
deadbeats? Let's talk about who these deadbeats really are. $3.5 
billion--54 percent of that $3.5 billion is attributed to military, 
active military, military Reserves, and retired military.
  Now, I don't know about you, but I think maybe we should rethink this 
because the truth of the matter is 54 percent have either been in the 
military or active military. Furthermore, 46 percent of those 
``deadbeats'' are civilian Federal employees retired and military 
Federal employees retired.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady is entitled to her opinion, but I don't 
believe her facts.
  Our information shows that, in fact, first of all, this bill only 
pertains to civilian personnel. It does not affect uniformed military 
personnel. Uniformed military personnel can be court-martialed for not 
living up to their financial obligations. That is certainly more than 
we are considering here.
  The fact is the numbers we presented, the numbers quoted here, 
represent civilian workers. Some of those civilian workers do also 
serve in the Reserves, and some of them are also retired individuals, 
but let's understand this is not about the men and women deployed in 
uniform. This is, in fact, about civilian workers who may have 
supplemental incomes from retirement, who may, in fact, also be 
Reserves. This is all about people who receive often more than $100,000 
a year and have not made arrangements to catch up on taxes that are 
seriously in arrears by up to $10,000 or more.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield that 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Baltimore.
  The basic problem with this bill is that it claims to fix a problem 
that doesn't exist. The fact is that Federal employees have a 
delinquency rate that is less than half of what it is for the average 
American taxpayer. The fact is that there already exist programs to 
garnish wages and annuity income for delinquent filers. The fact is 
that agencies can already take disciplinary action against employees 
who have tax debt, including that of termination.
  So why are we doing this--to punish people because they chose public 
service?
  This bill would have virtually no effect on revenue because there are 
so few civil servants who are delinquent and, invariably, there is some 
understandable reason, just as there has been for a number of our 
colleagues over the years.
  So it's not about bringing down the debt. This is about threatening 
Federal workers, singling them out by suggesting that there is some 
kind of endemic problem when there isn't. You've already docked the 
Federal workforce with up to 14 unpaid furlough days. You've cut more 
than $100 billion from their pensions and pay. You've just sequestered 
$600 million from the IRS.
  Federal employees work for our constituents, and they work for us. 
Their jobs are to carry out the laws that we make. The majority of this 
House apparently ran for office on the claim that the Federal 
Government isn't working, and now that they've been elected they're 
trying to prove it--by threatening and accusing and, thus, demoralizing 
the dedicated public servants who have fought our wars, built our roads 
and bridges, enforced our laws, invented the technology that powers our 
economy, and researched the treatments that heal and save our loved 
ones. And all this Congress can do is to threaten them with bills like 
this.
  This is not a fair bill, and thus I urge a ``no'' vote on it.
  Mr. ISSA. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. This bill doesn't threaten the Federal employees. It 
only threatens the Federal employees who don't pay their Federal taxes. 
You pay your taxes because you get your income from the taxpayers. It 
doesn't affect you.
  What I hear continually, Mr. Speaker, is, Oh, no problem here. Don't 
worry about it.
  It's $1 billion in uncollected taxes. For far too long, this Congress 
has ignored this. They keep giving contractors contracts up to the tune 
of $5 billion a year. I introduced that bill as well.
  So to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is unfair, it's 
unwarranted, it's going to harm Federal employees--it's going to 
protect Federal employees, because the ones who are doing the right 
job, that are patriotic, are protected under this bill. Only those who 
thumb their noses and won't pay their taxes are the ones who should be 
scared of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 15 seconds.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. The problem with this bill is that it singles out Federal 
employees by threatening and accusing them, suggesting that there is an 
endemic problem within the Federal Government, and there isn't.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I am more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah 
if I have the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. There are 107,000 people who haven't paid about $1 
billion in taxes. To suggest there isn't a problem is, I think, 
factually without merit.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to close on a little bit quieter note than 
the debate. The debate was, rightfully so, heated, and it was heated 
because, in fact, we are making an important symbolic statement in this 
legislation.
  $1 billion is a lot of money to the taxpayers listening, but the 
principle here is extremely important. It's a principle that shows 
that, when the IRS changed their rules, they didn't fire very many 
people. I'm sure, in fact, what they got was compliance, far greater 
compliance, but let's go through a few things because the gentlelady, 
my colleague and friend from California (Ms. Speier), used a larger 
number, and the larger numbers, in fact, are worth using in closing.

                              {time}  1830

  We've been talking, up until now, about $3 billion, $2.976 billion, 
that in fact is about the civilian employees of the Federal Government. 
They have a delinquency rate of approximately 3.62

[[Page 5213]]

percent. She mentioned other individuals, and I want to mention in 
closing their delinquency rate:
  Civilian retired: understand, these are not individuals you can fire. 
They're retired, but their delinquency is 2.5 percent.
  Military active duty: these are the men and women who have a 
different set of rules. They can be court-martialed if they don't live 
up to their obligations, 2 percent. Remember, that 2 percent includes 
all those who may eventually comply.
  Military Reserve and Guard: these are the men and women who give up 
their day jobs, often taking a huge pay cut in doing so, often 
unanticipated, 2.4 percent.
  Military retired, 4.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, I can't account for why, 
when military people retire, they find themselves seriously in arrears 
in taxes. But what I can say is when we look at 1 percent at the IRS, 
and 2 percent for those men and women getting a private's pay or a 
corporal's pay, they manage to keep their taxes straight.
  The Federal workforce has a high compliance rate, as has been said 
repeatedly by my colleagues. Their compliance rate is nearly twice the 
rate of the public as a whole. Of course, the public as a whole 
includes over 7 percent unemployed, and it includes all kinds of other 
characteristics that lead to people being in default.
  What we're saying here today is the IRS made a decision to have a 
compliance standard that has dramatically reduced failure to comply, 
and has put us in a situation where people of the IRS can say proudly: 
We pay our taxes. We pay our taxes at a 99 percent rate, and we deal 
with those who do not live up to promising to pay the rest.
  We just want the same for the Federal workforce, and I believe 
Federal workers listening here today would agree that in fact since 
most of them do exactly what's right, all of them should be held to do 
what is exactly right. I urge passage of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that all Americans, 
particularly Federal workers, should pay their taxes in full and on 
time, period. Fortunately, according to the most recent tax compliance 
statistics from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the vast majority 
of Federal workers, more than 96 percent, pay their taxes in full and 
on time.
  This admirable compliance rate is especially impressive when 
considering that the Nation's overall compliance rate is approximately 
83 percent. Further, with an average delinquency rate for Federal 
employees of 3.3 percent, compared to an average delinquency rate of 
7.4 percent for all American taxpayers, it is clear that our dedicated 
civil servants take their tax obligations seriously. In addition, for 
the small minority of Federal employees who fall behind on their taxes, 
the causes of financial hardship are not unique to Federal workers, but 
similar to the challenges and circumstances facing many middle class 
American families who find themselves temporarily unable to meet their 
tax obligations as a result of life-changing hardships, such as a 
divorce, serious illness, or a spouse losing a job.
  Simply put, H.R. 249 is a solution in search of a problem.
  The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate found that implementing 
H.R. 249 will cost taxpayers $1 million in 2014 and about $500,000 in 
subsequent years, since it will not enhance revenues. Although it may 
seem counterintuitive that the so-called ``Federal Employee Tax 
Accountability Act'' would increase the deficit, it is logical when one 
considers current law. Presently, the law provides for a hierarchy of 
penalties based on the seriousness and willfulness of the offense 
related to improperly filing a tax return, and it provides IRS the 
authority to garnish wages to recoup owed taxes from employees.
  H.R. 249 would replace this system with an inflexible mandate to fire 
any Federal employee with an outstanding tax debt to the Federal 
Government for which a public lien has been filed. If my Republican 
colleagues are so concerned about tax delinquency, then why not use the 
$1 million cost of this legislation to hire additional IRS enforcement 
agents to chip away at our Nation's net tax gap of approximately $385 
billion?
  We recently held a hearing where the head of the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office stated that the tax gap is the single largest 
item we can address to achieve savings. Could it be that actually 
recognizing such valuable work does not fit neatly with their negative 
narrative of the Federal workforce? Spending more than $1 million to 
implement H.R. 249, which only targets our country's civil servants and 
does nothing to address our Nation's $385 billion tax gap, is neither a 
prudent nor wise policy response. I urge all Members to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249, the 
misleadingly named Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. This bill 
unfairly singles out federal employees for punishment instead of 
applying a uniform set of rules to individuals who may be delinquent on 
their taxes.
  All Americans should pay their taxes, and those who fail to do so 
should be penalized. But this bill denies public workers the full 
complement of due process rights that would be available to any other 
American under the same circumstances. In effect, this bill would 
require the firing of any public employee even if they are legitimately 
contesting their delinquency through the established process. There are 
laws and regulations on the books that address how tax delinquency 
should be handled and how public employees who are delinquent on their 
payments should be disciplined. By by-passing those procedures, this 
measure unfairly targets public employees simply because they work for 
the government.
  Public servants work hard every day providing a wide array of public 
services for Americans, from helping to nurse our wounded veterans, to 
discovering cures and treatments for diseases that plague millions of 
American families, to protecting our food supply.
  The passage of this bill is the latest in a series of unfair 
congressional attacks on public workers that has ranged from cutting 
their pay to reducing their benefits. And this bill arrives just as 
many of them face further pay cuts resulting from agency imposed 
furloughs.
  Federal workers do not deserve to be treated like this.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition H.R. 249, the Federal 
Employee Tax Accountability Act.
  Failure to pay taxes is a serious offense and should be treated as 
such. Unfortunately, this bill is not a serious attempt to address that 
very complicated issue. Instead of being a good faith effort, this bill 
is being used as a political stunt and appears to be an attack on 
public employees.
  During Oversight and Government Reform Committee markup on this bill, 
a series of questions were raised about the Internal Revenue Service 
procedures related to tax delinquency. These questions include what 
steps may be taken to resolve a delinquency, when enforced collection 
action may be used, how repayment schedules are established, among 
others. Addressing these types of questions and concerns is what the 
Committee process is for. Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings 
wrote a letter to Steven Miller, Acting Commissioner at the IRS, to 
better understand these processes. The majority pledged to consider 
these responses and to amend this measure accordingly. Instead of 
waiting even two weeks for a reply, H.R. 9 was brought to the floor 
without amendment. The Chairman refused to wait for the answer to his 
own letter.
  I am also concerned that this bill does not make sufficient 
allowances for the dispute process to do its work. Americans have the 
right to appeal IRS collection actions. While exemptions are provided 
when a hearing has been scheduled under Collection Due Process, appeals 
to that ruling or under the Collection Appeals Program are not. 
Punishing anyone while they are still in the process of pursuing the 
normal IRS dispute process is wrong.
  Americans around the country are paying their taxes today. None of 
them should be fired while pursuing their legal rights to appeal or 
dispute IRS action. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 
249.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 249.
  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. ISSA. 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.

                          ____________________