[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5055-5057]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    PREVENT TARGETING AT THE IRS ACT

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 709) to provide for the termination of employment 
of employees of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official 
actions for political purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 709

       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 ``Prevent Targeting at the IRS 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
                   EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR 
                   POLITICAL PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(10) performing, delaying, or failing to perform (or 
     threatening to perform, delay, or fail to perform) any 
     official action (including any audit) with respect to a 
     taxpayer for purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit 
     or for a political purpose.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 709, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?

[[Page 5056]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci) to describe the 
contents of his bill, and thank Mr. Renacci for bringing this issue to 
our attention, for crafting this legislation, for moving it through 
committee on a bipartisan basis.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RENACCI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge approval of H.R. 709, the Prevent 
Targeting at the IRS Act.
  This bipartisan legislation has over 50 cosponsors and actually 
passed by voice vote in a previous Congress. I think the overwhelming 
support for this legislation shows that the vast majority of Members, 
regardless of their party affiliation, believe the IRS should be above 
politics.
  Congress has already acted to create a list of fireable offenses at 
the IRS. In 1998, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act passed by a vote 
of 402-8. It sought to bring accountability to the IRS by allowing for 
the immediate termination of IRS employees who engage in the so-called 
``10 deadly sins'' against taxpayers. Many of the Members in Congress 
today supported those reforms back then.
  Unfortunately, while that legislation covers many offenses, it did 
not include political targeting. I have no doubt this was a simple 
oversight.
  This is not a partisan issue. I cannot imagine any Member would 
support a process for removing an employee for bad behavior but somehow 
not consider political targeting to be a bad enough behavior. It is 
absolutely unacceptable for a government official to consider the 
political leanings of any taxpayer when conducting official business. 
If a Federal employee engages in political targeting, that employee 
should be fired. It is that simple.
  My legislation will make sure of it. It specifically spells out that 
any IRS employee, regardless of political affiliation, who targets a 
taxpayer for political purposes will immediately be relieved of his or 
her duties. If you work for the IRS, you cannot target taxpayers for 
political purposes. There should be no controversy in that.
  This legislation does not change any of the procedures for removing 
an IRS agent. It just adds ``political targeting'' to the list of the 
10 deadly sins already in existence.
  Though it has been nearly 2 years since we learned that the IRS 
targeted individuals based on their political beliefs, the American 
public's lack of trust in this Federal agency remains--and rightly so. 
Political targeting contradicts the very principles this country was 
founded upon, and there is no room for it in our democracy. It will not 
be tolerated.
  The IRS needs this legislation; the entire Federal Government needs 
this legislation; and, most importantly, the American people need this 
legislation. They need to know that they will not be targeted by their 
government for political purposes. They need to know that those who are 
entrusted with the vast power of the Federal Government will act in a 
responsible and professional manner and will be reprimanded if they 
don't. They need to know that the government is accountable to them and 
not the other way around.
  I urge all Members to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 709. This legislation removes 
certain protections that are otherwise available to Federal employees 
if an employee conducts his or her official duties with the intent to 
extract personal gain or for a political purpose.
  H.R. 709 responds to the investigation into the processing of tax-
exempt applications. This investigation started nearly 2 years ago, in 
May of 2013. To date, the agency has spent more than $20 million to 
produce more than 1.3 million pages of documents, including 78,000 
emails from Lois Lerner.
  Mr. Speaker, to date, there has not been one shred of evidence 
produced to support the Republican claim that the processing of 
applications was politically motivated or intended to target the 
President's political enemies.
  The inspector general even stated that no one outside the agency was 
involved in setting the criteria for processing tax-exempt 
applications. The delays experienced by groups were the result of 
incompetence at the agency in the Exempt Organizations Division.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``yes'' for H.R. 709.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I appreciate my 
colleague from Ohio bringing forth this important legislation.
  ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels 
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on 
government would be necessary.'' James Madison wrote these words 227 
years ago in his 51st Federalist Paper. It is an elegant way of 
expressing an ugly truth, that a government of the people cannot always 
be trusted to do right by the people and, thus, must hold itself in 
check for the sake of the people.
  When Madison penned the Federalist Papers, it was with a fresh view 
of what the British Parliament did to exert government control over the 
lives of the colonists, leading to the famous Boston Tea Party and, 
ultimately, a revolution.
  The targeted discrimination and unfair treatment of conservative 
organizations with the words ``Tea Party'' and others in their names 
that took place at the IRS under the direction of Lois Lerner shows 
what happens when government no longer feels accountable to the people 
and when the Constitution becomes simply a list of suggestions. 
Agencies can then become a political weapon for one party to use 
against the other.
  It is sad that we actually have to pass legislation to address these 
inexcusable actions. Every employee of the IRS, of this entire Federal 
Government, is ultimately a public servant. Once you stop serving the 
public and start serving political agendas, it is time for you to do 
something else.
  This bill will add targeting taxpayers for political purposes to the 
list of the 10 things that can get you fired as an employee of the IRS.
  I am not sure what is more upsetting about that sentence: that our 
government is so bureaucratic that only 10 things might get you fired 
at the IRS, or that political discrimination wasn't already one of 
those things.
  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward, commonsense 
measure.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a story. I want to take you back to 
1996. A friend of mine in Illinois, my former law partner, Al Salvi, 
was running for the United States Senate. He loaned himself some money 
to his campaign.
  The Federal Election Commission--a different agency than we are 
talking about, but stick with me. This is like a `Seinfeld' episode. It 
is all going to come together at the end. The Federal Election 
Commission said: You did that the wrong way. You violated Federal 
election law. They placed him under investigation. World War II 
headlines in the Chicago papers. He goes on, and he loses the election 
for the United States Senate.
  Now, political scientists can debate whether he would have won or 
whether he would have lost, but let's face it, being under 
investigation by the Federal Election Commission generally does not 
help you win a political campaign.
  At the end of that campaign, the Federal Election Commission came and 
they made a very large settlement demand. I don't remember off the top 
of my head how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they were 
demanding from him, but he said: I didn't do anything wrong, and I am 
not going to pay you any money.

[[Page 5057]]

  The Federal Election Commission said: That is fine. We are going to 
sue you--which they did. They filed a lawsuit against him in Federal 
court. A Federal judge reads the pleadings, dismisses the case--against 
the Federal Election Commission--and finds in favor of Al Salvi.
  You would think that this drama all ended there. Oh, no, no, no. The 
Federal Election Commission came back, and they said: Well, we know you 
won, but we are still going to make a settlement demand of you. We are 
going to lower the amount, but we are still going to make a demand 
because, if you don't pay us, we are going to appeal the judge's 
ruling.
  Al Salvi is a pretty sophisticated lawyer. He talked to the lawyer at 
the other end of the line and said to that person: Let me talk to the 
person who had authority on this case because you don't understand. I 
won; you lost. I am not going to pay you any money. Let me talk to the 
person with authority on the case at the Federal Election Commission.
  That person got on the phone with Al Salvi and said this: If you 
pledge never to run for office again, we will drop this case.
  Al Salvi said: Put that in writing.
  The person said: We don't put that in writing, and we never lose.
  That person was Lois Lerner.
  Now, you take that disposition, you take that attitude, you take that 
long arm of a bureaucrat who reaches into the sanctity of the ballot 
booth, and you've got a real problem. And you up the wattage on that, 
you move her over and you give her the type of authority that not the 
Federal Election Commission has, but the Internal Revenue Service to 
grab somebody by the throat and to do whatever they want with them, 
with the possibility of imprisoning them, that is a problem. That is a 
problem that the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Renacci, is trying 
to make go away.
  We had a hearing in the last Congress. I hear a lot of testimony. We 
all hear a lot of testimony. But this testimony was inspirational to me 
because these were people that came in before our committee.
  Committee members, you will remember this.
  They told us about how they had been targeted. But you know what was 
the most incredible thing? They kept faith with their country when it 
didn't look like their country had kept faith with them. They said: 
This isn't America. My America doesn't target me. My America doesn't 
shun me out of the public square.
  But you know the one that got the most attention in my mind was the 
pro-life group in Iowa who was asked by the Internal Revenue Service: 
Tell us about your organization; tell us about your activity.
  They gave a list of activities, and one of the activities they said 
was: We have prayer meetings.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. We have prayer meetings.
  And the IRS said: In writing, under penalty of perjury, tell us about 
your prayer meetings.
  The hair on the back of my neck is tingling at this moment as I am 
describing this to you because it is so scandalous.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I believe the specific question from the IRS 
to the pro-life group from Iowa was: What do you pray about?
  Mr. ROSKAM. So can you imagine that? You are a nice little group, 
minding your own business, in Iowa, with a point of view, and the 
Internal Revenue Service starts roughing you up?
  This targeting is insidious. This targeting is poisonous. This 
targeting is without a defender. There is nobody who is getting up on 
this floor today--no voice is saying, ``Oh, yes. Let him do it. It is 
fine. It will all settle out.'' Not the ranking member, he is not 
defending this. There was nobody. Not the chairman, he is not defending 
this.
  Everybody in this House should all be saying that we all have the 
right to come in and make our arguments and try to persuade the public 
to vote for us, and it should be never a bureaucrat who manipulates and 
uses power to an end and abuses somebody who, by good faith, is coming 
into this process.
  This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This one is the one that really takes the cake with us because we 
recognized a persistent pattern of targeting and harassment by the 
Internal Revenue Service over groups, and the only thing that grouped 
these groups together, the only thing that was similar, was their 
political persuasion, their political beliefs.
  So the question that I get asked a lot from hard-working taxpayers in 
Wisconsin is: Did the IRS really target people based on their political 
beliefs? And the answer is: Absolutely yes, they did.
  That is tyrannical; that is beyond the pale; and that, with the 
passage of this bill, will be illegal. It will make it extremely clear, 
no ifs, ands, or buts.
  And let me tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker. There is still a 
long ways to go with the investigation that is still underway, but what 
we already know is that this targeting happened. People were targeted 
based on their political beliefs, and this law makes that a crime.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Renacci) for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman; I want to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments; and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from the other side.

                              {time}  1500

  Look, it is pretty simple. It is unacceptable for a government 
official to consider the political leanings of any taxpayer when 
conducting official business. If a federal employee engages in 
political targeting, that employee should be fired. It is that simple.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support H.R. 709 to 
prevent targeting of the IRS, a commonsense piece of legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 709, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________