[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5061-5067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1563) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
individuals having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible 
for Federal employment, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1563

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Tax 
     Accountability Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF NONCOMPLIANT TAXPAYERS FOR FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER VIII--INELIGIBILITY OF NONCOMPLIANT TAXPAYERS FOR FEDERAL 
                               EMPLOYMENT

     ``Sec. 7381. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) The term `seriously delinquent tax debt' means a 
     Federal tax liability that has been assessed by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     may be collected by the Secretary by levy or by a proceeding 
     in court, except that such term does not include--
       ``(A) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant 
     to an agreement under section 6159 or section 7122 of such 
     Code;
       ``(B) a debt with respect to which a collection due process 
     hearing under section 6330 of such Code, or relief under 
     subsection (a), (b), or (f) of section 6015 of such Code, is 
     requested or pending;
       ``(C) a debt with respect to which a continuous levy has 
     been issued under section 6331 of such Code (or, in the case 
     of an applicant for employment, a debt with respect to which 
     the applicant agrees to be subject to such a levy); and
       ``(D) a debt with respect to which such a levy is released 
     under section 6343(a)(1)(D) of such Code;
       ``(2) the term `employee' means an employee in or under an 
     agency, including an individual described in sections 2104(b) 
     and 2105(e); and
       ``(3) the term `agency' means--

[[Page 5062]]

       ``(A) an Executive agency;
       ``(B) the United States Postal Service;
       ``(C) the Postal Regulatory Commission; and
       ``(D) an employing authority in the legislative branch.

     ``Sec. 7382. Ineligibility for employment

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), any 
     individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt shall be 
     ineligible to be appointed or to continue serving as an 
     employee.
       ``(b) Disclosure Requirement.--The head of each agency 
     shall take appropriate measures to ensure that each 
     individual applying for employment with such agency shall be 
     required to submit (as part of the application for 
     employment) certification that such individual does not have 
     any seriously delinquent tax debt.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management, in 
     consultation with the Internal Revenue Service, shall, for 
     purposes of carrying out this section with respect to the 
     executive branch, promulgate any regulations which the Office 
     considers necessary, except that such regulations shall 
     provide for the following:
       ``(1) All applicable due process rights, afforded by 
     chapter 75 and any other provision of law, shall apply with 
     respect to a determination under this section that an 
     applicant is ineligible to be appointed or that an employee 
     is ineligible to continue serving.
       ``(2) Before any such determination is given effect with 
     respect to an individual, the individual shall be afforded 
     180 days to demonstrate that such individual's debt is one 
     described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 
     7381(a)(1).
       ``(3) An employee may continue to serve, in a situation 
     involving financial hardship, if the continued service of 
     such employee is in the best interests of the United States, 
     as determined on a case-by-case basis.
       ``(d) Reports to Congress.--The Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall report annually to Congress on the 
     number of exemptions requested and the number of exemptions 
     granted under subsection (c)(3).

     ``Sec. 7383. Review of public records

       ``(a) In General.--Each agency shall provide for such 
     reviews of public records as the head of such agency 
     considers appropriate to determine if a notice of lien has 
     been filed pursuant to section 6323 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 with respect to an employee of or an applicant 
     for employment with such agency.
       ``(b) Additional Requests.--If a notice of lien is 
     discovered under subsection (a) with respect to an employee 
     or applicant for employment, the agency may--
       ``(1) request that the employee or applicant execute and 
     submit a form authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     disclose to the head of the agency information limited to 
     describing whether--
       ``(A) the employee or applicant has a seriously delinquent 
     tax debt; or
       ``(B) there is a final administrative or judicial 
     determination that such employee or applicant committed any 
     act described under section 7385(b); and
       ``(2) request that the Secretary of the Treasury disclose 
     any information so authorized to be disclosed.
       ``(c) Authorization Form.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to all agencies a standard form for the 
     authorization described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(d) Negative Consideration.--The head of an agency, in 
     considering an individual's application for employment or in 
     making an employee appraisal or evaluation, shall give 
     negative consideration to a refusal or failure to comply with 
     a request under subsection (b)(1).

     ``Sec. 7384. Confidentiality

       ``Neither the head nor any other employee of an agency 
     may--
       ``(1) use any information furnished under the provisions of 
     this subchapter for any purpose other than the administration 
     of this subchapter;
       ``(2) make any publication whereby the information 
     furnished by or with respect to any particular individual 
     under this subchapter can be identified; or
       ``(3) permit anyone who is not an employee of such agency 
     to examine or otherwise have access to any such information.

     ``Sec. 7385. Adverse actions for employees who understate 
       taxes or fail to file

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c) and paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection, the head of an agency may take any 
     personnel action against an employee of such agency if there 
     is a final administrative or judicial determination that such 
     employee committed any act described under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Personnel actions.--In paragraph (1), the term 
     `personnel action' includes separation but does not include 
     administrative leave or any other type of paid leave without 
     duty or charge to leave.
       ``(b) Acts.--The acts referred to under subsection (a)(1) 
     are--
       ``(1) willful failure to file any return of tax required 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, unless such failure 
     is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect; or
       ``(2) willful understatement of Federal tax liability, 
     unless such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not 
     to willful neglect.
       ``(c) Procedure.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Office of Personnel Management, an employee subject to a 
     personnel action under this section shall be entitled to the 
     procedures provided under sections 7513 or 7543, as 
     applicable.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 73 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``subchapter viii--ineligibility of noncompliant taxpayers for federal 
                               employment

``7381. Definitions.
``7382. Ineligibility for employment.
``7383. Review of public records.
``7384. Confidentiality.
``7385. Adverse actions for employees who understate taxes or fail to 
              file.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me be clear right away. We have got great Federal workers. They 
care; they are patriotic; they work hard, but we have got a few that 
are bad apples. We have got to give the tools necessary to the 
leadership within the administration to do what is right and, if 
necessary, allow them latitude to let those people go.
  We voted on a similar bill years ago before I got into Congress. We 
gave this right and authority. We gave it to the IRS. Guess what, the 
IRS has the best tax compliance in all Federal Government--who would 
have thought.
  I was pleased to see that Congressman Steny Hoyer voted for that 
piece of legislation, that Congressman Elijah Cummings voted for that 
legislation.
  We want to take that same power, that same right that we gave the IRS 
years ago because it worked--it worked--and we want to give that to the 
other departments and agencies.
  Now, there are a lot of exceptions; there are a lot of ways to get 
out of this, but the basic principle is true. One, Federal workers do a 
better job of paying their taxes than the general public, and we should 
pat them on the back, and we should recognize them for that; but, two, 
when you do have a few bad apples, you have got to allow leadership the 
ability to let those people go if they continue to thumb their nose at 
the system and the taxpayers.
  We just heard testimony from the DEA: I can't fire anybody, even 
though they were engaged in some very nefarious activity.
  We heard the administrator of the EPA say: I can't let anybody go, 
even though the person is watching 4 hours of porn a day.
  Four hours a day, they couldn't fire them. Let's give them some 
latitude because we have a test case. It has worked. We want tax 
compliance.
  The President's fiscal year 2016 budget asks American taxpayers to 
spend $275 billion to pay Federal workers an average salary of more 
than $78,000; yet the IRS reports that more than 100,000 Federal 
civilian employees owed more than $1 billion in unpaid Federal income 
taxes in 2014--more than $1 billion.

                              {time}  1530

  Now, there are lots of reasons people can't do that. There are people 
who need to have their wages garnished, and they are. There are people 
who are disputing what the IRS said. Again, this bill doesn't affect 
those people. The adjudication process continues on, and this bill 
doesn't affect those people. As a last resort, we need a tool

[[Page 5063]]

that the IRS has for its employees. We need that tool for the other 
departments and agencies because, like it or not, the law requires that 
we pay taxes.
  Five years ago, President Obama directed his administration to crack 
down on tax cheats. It was specifically targeting and discussing 
contractors, but I would argue that the same principle for contractors 
should be in place for Federal employees. How can you look the 
contractors and the employees in the eyes and say, Well, we have got 
two totally different standards of principles? The principle is the 
same--pay your taxes, and there is not a problem. If you are in trouble 
and if you are trying to get out of it, not a problem. We will work 
with you. Yet, for those of you who are just screwing over the American 
taxpayer, bye-bye. You can't even apply.
  The President said:

       All across this country, there are people who meet their 
     obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You support 
     your families. You pay the taxes you owe--because it's a 
     fundamental responsibility of citizenship.

  I totally and wholeheartedly agree.
  The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act makes individuals with 
seriously delinquent tax debt ineligible for Federal employment. It is 
defined as an outstanding Federal tax debt that has been assessed and 
may be collected by levy or court proceeding. The legislation does not 
affect employees who are working to settle their tax disputes or 
resolving outstanding liabilities.
  I want to also remind everybody that the committee and I, as the 
prime sponsor, accepted every Democrat amendment that was offered--100 
percent.
  Several other safeguards are carved out in the bill, including 
provisions offered by the minority in the previous Congresses.
  Individuals are provided full due process rights and have an 
additional 180 days to demonstrate their debts meet one of the 
exemptions of the bill. That was, I believe, offered by Congressman 
Lynch. We accepted it. We thought we would get broader support because 
of it, and we would hope we would today.
  The bill also provides a financial hardship exemption if the 
individual's service is in the best interest of the United States. The 
person who is leading that department or agency still has discretion. 
If he says, It is in the best interest, in my judgment, for the United 
States to continue to have this person serve, he is allowed to continue 
to serve.
  The bill demonstrates a simple principle: individuals collecting 
Federal salaries funded by taxpayers have to follow the rules and pay 
their taxes.
  Those charged with the stewardship of our Federal resources and 
programs should not be delinquent in their taxes. As all Americans file 
their taxes today, so should Federal employees, and most of them do--in 
fact, at better rates than civilians do.
  Last month, in testimony before the committee, the GAO warned 
Congress of tens of thousands of Federal employees who were eligible 
for security clearances but who still had unpaid tax debts. I would 
argue that that is a potential security risk. It shows a vulnerability.
  During the hearing, Members discussed the IRS employees' high rate of 
tax compliance.
  From 2009 to 2013, IRS employees had a 0.8 percent delinquency rate 
compared to 3.3 percent for civilian workers throughout the government.
  The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which, again, Mr. 
Hoyer, Mr. Cummings, and a host of other people voted in favor of, 
requires the removal of IRS employees who are found to have willfully 
failed to have filed their tax returns and who have willfully 
understated their Federal tax liabilities.
  The House passed the conference report for this bill by a vote of 
402-8. Overwhelming. I have never heard another Member complain that 
the IRS has this provision in place. Let's even the playing field. 
Let's give that same tool to the rest of the Federal Government. Don't 
give it just to the IRS. Give it to the Department of Defense. Give it 
to the other departments and agencies because the financial results of 
that work.
  This bill makes Federal workers subject to the same standard as that 
for IRS employees. Not all Federal workers are tax cheats. This is not 
about politics. I appreciate the good work that has gone on in this 
bill. Unfortunately, despite past efforts, we have not been able to get 
this bill over the finish line. I hope the House will again support the 
bill, as it did in 2012, and that the Senate will act on this bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax 
Accountability Act of 2015.
  The bill seeks to resolve a problem of tax compliance that simply 
does not exist--a fact confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service. This 
measure is based on ideology rather than on facts, and it will 
perpetuate a negative image of Federal workers.
  This legislation is very similar to H.R. 249, introduced in the last 
Congress, which I opposed in committee and on this House floor. I 
remain opposed to this legislation because the purpose and intent of 
the bill is the same as the measure from last Congress. It would 
require Federal agencies to fire Federal employees who are delinquent 
in paying their taxes.
  Everyone, including Federal employees, should pay their taxes. There 
is no argument on that. My Republican colleagues seem to believe that 
there is a serious problem with Federal employees not paying their 
taxes and that it requires a legislative fix. There is not, and the 
chairman, I think, admitted that.
  Last Congress, after committee consideration, former committee 
chairman--Chairman Issa--and I sought information from the IRS on their 
rules and procedures regarding debt collections, options for resolving 
delinquencies, and payment options. Without waiting for these answers, 
the Republican leadership rushed this bill to the floor. During this 
Congress, we were able to obtain valuable information from the IRS 
which the Republicans have chosen to ignore by bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  The IRS has a mechanism in place already to recoup funds from Federal 
employees who fail to pay their taxes. It is known as the Federal 
Payment Levy Program. Under this program, the IRS can impose a 
continuous levy on Federal salaries and pensions up to 15 percent until 
the debt is paid. The IRS can initiate additional levies in cases when 
it determines that it is appropriate to do so. Data from the IRS shows 
that all Federal employees who owe taxes and who do not qualify for 
financial hardship exemptions or who are not involved in bankruptcy, 
litigation, or pending offers in compromise are subject to having their 
wages levied. That can happen today.
  Since the start of the levy program, the IRS has been extremely 
successful in recovering delinquent taxes from Federal employees. 
According to the IRS, the levy program has collected over $5 billion 
since 2000. These facts indicate that the IRS is succeeding in 
recovering delinquent taxes in 100 percent or in nearly all cases 
involving Federal employees. The fact is that the IRS has confirmed 
that it does not have a problem in collecting delinquent taxes from 
Federal employees. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see a problem with 
the government's ability to recover delinquent taxes from Federal 
employees.
  I do not understand why, despite this fact, we are debating this 
measure on the floor today. According to the IRS, the 2014 tax 
compliance rate for the Federal community was 97 percent. This is 
higher than the 95 percent tax compliance rate for Members and staffs 
of the House of Representatives. It is also much higher than the 91 
percent compliance rate for the general public.
  This legislation is designed to demonize Federal employees rather 
than to help the government recoup delinquent taxes. It is interesting 
to note that we want to collect the taxes, but we will never get them 
if we fire people. In fact, the Congressional Budget

[[Page 5064]]

 Office concluded that these proposals would increase costs, by the 
way, to the taxpayers. Let me repeat. The CBO determined that these 
provisions would actually increase costs. That is because it would 
require agencies to spend time and resources in reviewing public 
records to find tax liens filed against current or prospective 
employees even though the gains would be minimal. Keep in mind that we 
already have a process to levy these funds that might be delinquent.
  For these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about what this bill is 
and what it is not.
  When we talk about tax compliance, it becomes very easy to focus on 
those hardship cases, very easy to focus, as the gentleman opposite 
just talked about, on that 3 to 5 percent, depending on which agency 
you are talking about. This bill is really not about those with 
hardship cases, as there is already an exemption there. This bill is 
not about trying to penalize Federal workers. It is really about 
fairness, Mr. Speaker.
  Why is it fair that 97 percent in some agency--94 and 95 in others--
pay their taxes on time, and yet we continue to give others a free 
pass?
  My friend opposite would many times suggest, Oh, well, they are 
complying better than this group and that group; but we need to look no 
further than the IRS because the IRS implemented a different standard 
within their agency. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Their compliance 
went way up. They have one of the best records, that we get to oversee, 
with the Federal employees.
  When we started to look at this, the chairman was very careful to 
make sure that hardship cases--the ones that all of our hearts go out 
to when people have family situations that preclude them from being 
able to pay their taxes on a timely basis--are an exemption. Yet I 
would say, whether it is Congress or whether it is the Federal 
employees, we are held to a different standard because we are paid with 
the hard-working American taxpayers' dollars. It is a higher standard 
than the private sector's. It is difficult for us to acknowledge that, 
but we are under the scrutiny that we should be because we have the 
authority to tax and spend. When you have both of those authorities, 
Mr. Speaker, it is a different standard.
  I, for one, can tell you that, from the Federal employees' 
standpoint, it is all about making sure that we are fair to them. What 
happens is, when the headline is ``Federal employees are not paying 
their taxes,'' for whatever reason it may be, it paints in a bad light 
the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who do everything right 
and on time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that what we must do is not only address this 
for the integrity of the American people but address it for the 
integrity and the spirit of those Federal workers as well.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want somebody to answer for me: How do you get the money 
from somebody who is fired, who has no job?
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my 
friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the ranking member said this was a bill to solve a 
nonexistent problem. Everybody ought to pay their taxes--everybody. 
Everybody ought to pay their taxes. Now, if you are really rich, you 
can find an accountant who can find you about every loophole there is 
that we have given. You want to have a bill on the floor closing 
loopholes.

                              {time}  1545

  The chairman admits that Federal employees pay their taxes 
voluntarily and correctly at a higher percentage than the general 
public. Should every one of them pay? Should it be 100 percent? The 
chairman is right; it should be 100 percent.
  The gentleman from North Carolina talks about our Federal employees, 
and they ought to be treated correctly. We are their board of 
directors. I will tell you, folks, if any board of directors of any 
large corporation in America treated its employees the way we treat 
them, they would all quit, and the company would go bankrupt, because 
we treat our Federal employees very poorly--very poorly.
  The general public, of course, thinks they are loafing and they are 
not working hard and this, that, and the other, and that is wrong. We 
have the best civil service in the world.
  This does convey the message that somehow you are not doing what you 
are supposed to do. I know the gentleman gets up and says this is a 
very small percentage. When a Member of Congress doesn't pay his taxes 
and he gets indicted and he has to quit this body, it besmirches all of 
us.
  The gentleman from Maryland is absolutely correct. It has not been 
mentioned, but there is a provision in law that allows the IRS to go in 
and take the salary of Federal employees. That is what the gentleman is 
talking about. Unlike the private sector, where you have to go through 
a lot of rigmarole--properly so, to protect the taxpayer--the Federal 
employee is subjected to the IRS having special authority going and 
taking part of their salary.
  Now, by the way, this mentions Federal employees. I don't know 
whether the ranking member knows the answer to this, but are Members of 
Congress included in that definition? The answer? The gentleman is 
shaking his head, saying no. Yet the Congress as an institution has a 
lower rate of paying, some 95 percent as opposed to 97 percent, of 
Federal employees.
  What is this all about? This is about, frankly, saying government is 
bad and the people who work for them aren't so hot either. Now, I don't 
think the gentleman from Utah thinks that is the message. I understand 
that. The gentleman is my friend. I like him. He is a bright and able 
fellow. But that is the message we are sending. It's a bad message.
  I will tell you, I represent 62,000 Federal employees, and I tell all 
of them and all the unions, if they are not performing their job, if 
they are watching television 4 hours a day, they ought to be fired. I 
will support the gentleman in that effort because we ought to demand 
performance, and that is why we have, in the IRS Code, you can take the 
salary if they are not paying their taxes. That is not true of any 
other employee in America. You have got to go through a legal process, 
et cetera, et cetera, as you should.
  So I would urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, as we did in the 
last Congress on suspension, and yes, tell all of our employees, ``You 
need to pay your taxes,'' and make sure if they don't, IRS gets their 
fees; and if they are not performing their task and it undermines their 
performance, then we ought to subject them, just as every other 
employee, to being removed, but not simply to say, arbitrarily, this 
employee, these employees, our employees, America's employees, will be 
treated more harshly than the American people and the American workers 
around this country are treated. Treat them the same. That is fair. 
That is what they hope for.
  We shut down government for 16 days, sent our employees home. The 
gentleman from North Carolina talked about there are some bad 
circumstances for some people: they have got to pay a mortgage payment 
or a rent payment or a car payment or a college tuition. We sent them 
home and we said: We are not paying you. We came back later and we 
said: Oh, no, we are going to pay you. But we caused them a great deal 
of angst.
  I will tell you this: that is not the way to treat people. We didn't 
send them home because we didn't have the money to pay for them. We 
didn't send them home because America was bankrupt. We sent them home 
because we disagreed with a policy the President was pursuing or we 
wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, over which

[[Page 5065]]

they had no control. But we sent them home without pay. Very frankly, 
those who were critical employees we kept working, but we didn't pay 
them. What way is that to run any organization, much less the greatest 
country on the face of the Earth?
  I urge my colleagues, show respect and fairness to those who work for 
our country in the civil service of our country. Reject this 
legislation. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard speeches on this floor about fairness, 
about treating them the same. I will remind Members that on June 25, 
1998, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act--which Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Cummings, and others voted in favor of--gave this same power and 
authority to the IRS, gave them the same authority and power. Why not 
treat them equally and fairly? Why not treat them exactly the same as 
the IRS employees? Why are the IRS employees treated so unfairly?
  Other Members that are standing here on this floor today voted in 
favor of that bill. So it was okay back then, just gave it to them. 
Guess what; tax compliance went up.
  I take issue with this quote, ``ideology rather than facts.'' The 
facts are, every single year the number of Federal employees not paying 
their Federal taxes has gone up. In fact, in 2008, we roughly didn't 
collect $962 million; in 2014, $1.14 billion.
  If you pay your taxes, you are trying to pay your taxes, you don't 
have a problem. But if you want to be fair, if you want to be the same, 
if you want to treat them equally, then give the other departments and 
agencies the same power that we gave the IRS.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. What other employee in America is subject to being fired 
because they don't pay taxes? Does the gentleman want to include either 
Members of Congress in this bill or all private sector employees?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the spirit in which 
that is asked. I would hope the gentleman would join me in cosponsoring 
H.R. 1564, the Members of Congress Tax Accountability Act. There are 
constitutional reasons why we can't include them in this provision, but 
this bill has been referred to the Committee on House Administration, 
and I would encourage all Members to get behind this because there 
should be a higher standard for Members of Congress. That should be 
more readily available to the public. You should have to disclose that 
liability. Right now, you don't. So I introduced that bill as well.
  I would also argue that Federal employees taking taxpayer dollars 
have a high standard and that the evidence that we have--and I have 
said it repeatedly, and I know the gentleman has heard this--Mr. 
Speaker, Mr. Hoyer voted in favor of this same bill years ago, and it 
has worked. I have never heard anybody say, ``This is a problem. We 
have got to change this. We have got to take it out.'' I have never 
heard anybody offer an amendment. In fact, we accepted 100 percent, 
every amendment that was offered by the Democrats. We accepted them. We 
accepted them.
  I want to tackle a couple other things.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't think I got the answer to the private sector 
employees.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Fair enough.
  Reclaiming my time, since I didn't yield it, but reclaiming my time, 
I said, clearly, I don't think this should be part of the private 
sector. I think working for the Federal Government is a privilege, it 
is an honor, and I take great exception, Mr. Speaker, to the idea and 
the notion that we treat Federal workers so poorly that if we were a 
company everybody would quit. Well, they can quit. They don't. You look 
at the turnover rate in the private sector versus the turnover rate in 
the Federal Government, we treat them pretty darn well.
  Can we do things better? Yes. Part of that is weeding out the bad 
apples. If you are sitting there watching pornography on your computer 
4 hours a day, then you should be fired. If you are a DEA agent down 
serving in Colombia and you have sex slaves coming before you paid by 
them, then you should fire them. If you are a Federal worker thumbing 
your nose at the Federal Government, not paying your taxes, then you 
should be eligible to be fired by the supervisor. That supervisor, 
don't we trust them to make that decision and say: You know what? This 
person is so vital, they do such good work, we are going to keep them?
  But you know what? 24,833 Federal employees didn't even file a 
Federal tax return, didn't even file one last year. Is that too small a 
percentage to worry about? How do you look people in the eye who are 
all working in this room at some government office and they are all 
paying their taxes, but these eight yahoos over here aren't paying 
their taxes?
  I believe that standing up for the Federal workers means, you know 
what, we owe it to all of you that are doing a good job to make sure 
that they are too. If they don't and they are not getting good, guess 
what. A, you are not going to be hired, and, B, you are eligible to be 
fired.
  Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what Mr. Hoyer voted for, and it worked. 
It worked. It was a good piece of legislation. It was a good vote. 
Guess what. The IRS now has the highest--less than 1 percent of their 
people don't pay their Federal taxes. Give that same tool to the other 
departments and agencies, and I think we will have even better 
compliance, and we can look the American people in the eye and say: You 
know what? We are doing everything we can. Stop picking on Federal 
employees.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I would hope the gentleman would make it very, very clear 
he is not making an analogy between the two instances that he cited for 
firing, on which I would agree with him, and a Federal employee, for 
whatever reason, says: Mr. Meadows may not have paid his taxes. 
Certainly the gentleman is not making an analogy between the two 
instances he cited and the latter, I hope; because if he is, he is 
doing exactly what I think this bill does.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard some words here on the floor describing 
this bill as simply actually a bill to protect Federal workers who are 
in compliance from that small percentage who aren't. We had a hearing 
today in the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the committee of 
which Mr. Chaffetz is full committee chair, and I asked the question of 
the tax advocate of the IRS: How would you characterize 97 percent 
compliance when the broad public compliance with tax compliance is 83 
to 86 percent? So how would you characterize 97 percent? The answer 
was: Extraordinary.
  This is a solution in search of a problem, and the protestations to 
the contrary notwithstanding, this is another way--albeit cloaked in 
respectability and sanctimony--of whacking Federal employees again. We 
just heard it: scratch the surface, and suddenly they are all watching 
pornography; they are all sitting around not doing work; they are all, 
in fact, not filing taxes, and they ought to be fired--let me go 
through the list of firing offenses--allowing the impression that this 
actually characterizes the Federal workforce.
  My friend, the minority whip, said that if you were a CEO and managed 
your company this way, you would be fired or your company would go out 
of

[[Page 5066]]

business. My friend from Utah took exception to that. But for those who 
say we ought to run the Federal Government as a private company, what 
CEO would keep his or her job who froze wages for 3 years; who 
disparaged his workforce as being overcompensated, unproductive, lazy, 
too many of them, and we are going to crack down on you; go after their 
benefits and make sure they are reduced; threaten not to pay your bills 
while you are at it? What company would stay in business? What CEO 
would ever get away with that? That is what we are doing here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. We are disparaging the Federal workforce. No matter how 
you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman in this room that 
it was President Obama who introduced the pay freeze.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching some of this 
dialogue, and I will pick right up where the gentleman from Virginia 
just left off.
  This is not an attack on Federal workers. I sat on the subcommittee, 
Mr. Speaker, when we had the hearing on this issue. This is not an 
attack on Federal workers. This has absolutely nothing to do with 
Federal workers and everything to do with taking care of the people who 
pay for those Federal workers, taking care of the people who pay the 
taxes.
  The story was told of what happened yesterday in the hearing about 
the DEA. You can accept the services of a prostitute from a drug lord, 
let the drug cartel members watch your guns and your cell phone, and 
still not get fired.
  It is not an attack on Federal workers. People back home see that and 
think that we are crazy. They think we are completely nuts and that we 
do not know how to run the country. You have to look at that hearing 
yesterday and think: you know what, they may be right.
  This bill is an attempt to at least try to send the message back home 
to people and make it very clear: if someone is going to audit you for 
not paying your taxes, at the very least that person will have paid 
their taxes.
  That is not a slam on Federal workers. It is going to the American 
people who pay the taxes and saying: look, we may not do the best we 
possibly can, but at least we pay attention to some things, and we are 
going to make sure that the people that are auditing you are at least 
following the law that they are making you follow.
  That is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, and it is certainly not 
an attack on the larger Federal workforce. It is simply trying to 
reaffirm for people back home that we are not absurd and that we are 
not crazy and that we are not running this country in any mindless 
fashion, that we actually do pay attention to what is important to 
folks back home.
  If we can't fire the guys taking the prostitutes from the drug lords, 
maybe we can make sure the people doing the audits pay the taxes. That 
is what this bill is about, which is why it should pass.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's put in context what is happening on this floor 
today. This is tax day, and what the majority does each tax day is pull 
out tax bills. Some of them are good bills; some of them have the 
appearance of everything but the kitchen sink.
  There are some Members of their party who are running for President 
on abolishing the IRS. Well, you can't abolish it; so what they are 
doing is targeting working people in the Federal Government to point 
out that Republicans are not asleep on tax day.
  What the Republican majority is doing today is a gratuitous, useless, 
slap in the face of Federal employees who apparently do understand that 
they have an affirmative duty, even beyond others, to pay their taxes 
because they do so at a rate that is almost twice that of the general 
public which is more than twice that of other Americans.
  The best that can be said about this bill is that it is entirely 
superfluous. It does what already can be done. What can be done is 
this: existing statutory authority gives the Federal Government, the 
IRS, the ability to collect Federal, State, and local taxes from all 
Federal employees.
  If federal agencies find that there is a delinquent taxpayer, they 
can already, under Federal law, go from counseling to removal for all 
Federal employees. That is in the law already, my friends.
  In their wisdom, Congresses in the past have wanted to keep Federal 
employees paying their taxes until they paid them off, so Congress 
didn't cut off its nose to spite its face by taking away their jobs as 
this bill allows.
  They tried something that has worked, the Federal Employee/Retiree 
Delinquency Initiative, which matches up Federal employees in all the 
agencies, not just the IRS, with delinquencies so they have their very 
low delinquency rate today.
  The IRS also can levy past the usual limit of 15 percent until the 
government gets all its money. The IRS have the discretion to do this 
for all Federal employees, not only IRS employees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mooney of West Virginia). The time of 
the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. Chairman Issa called this bill entirely cosmetic--
conceded that this bill was cosmetic when it was introduced before.
  If you want to do something about taxes for the American people, stop 
cutting the IRS so that the IRS can start collecting taxes and cutting 
the deficit.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch), my good friend.
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal 
Employee Tax Accountability Act.
  I just want to point out that this is indeed about Federal employees, 
the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. It is all about Federal 
employees.
  While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz), I remain concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563 
will be to significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated 
Federal workforce.
  It is important to note that Internal Revenue Code section 6103 
provides that all citizens, for all citizens, Federal tax information--
including tax returns, annual wage and tax statements, and tax penalty 
notices--is strictly confidential and must remain in the trust of only 
the IRS. It must remain in the trust of only the IRS and the individual 
taxpayer. That is it. It is not open to general knowledge.
  Under this bill, though, tax information--which now includes health 
information because of the Affordable Care Act--is all going to be 
shared among every single Federal agency to take so-called adverse 
personnel actions against one of its employees where the agency finds 
that an individual has willfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or 
failed to file a return on time.
  Now, we have completely blown this out. If it is not about Federal 
employees, this is what we are going to do to every American taxpayer. 
We are basically deputizing the bosses of all these Federal employees 
to be able to delve into their personal tax information, their personal 
healthcare information that is now held by the IRS.
  We are blowing this completely out so that we are damaging all of 
these

[[Page 5067]]

Federal employees' privacy rights, and we also present the possibility 
that, in the future, this will be done to every American citizen. This 
is not a good idea.
  I think that we have every opportunity to make sure the people pay 
their taxes. There is a greater compliance rate among Federal employees 
than there is among the general public.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal 
Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015. While I have the greatest 
respect for the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, I remain 
concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563 will be to 
significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated Federal 
workforce.
  Importantly, Internal Revenue code section 6103 provides that all 
federal tax information--including tax returns, annual wage and tax 
statements, and tax penalty notices--is strictly confidential and must 
remain in the trust of only the Internal Revenue Service and the 
individual taxpayer. Current law therefore prohibits any federal 
agency--other than the I.R.S.--from delving into personal tax 
information to determine an individual's tax compliance status.
  In stark contrast, H.R. 1563 would authorize the head of not only the 
I.R.S. but every federal agency to take so-called ``adverse personnel 
actions'' against one of its employees where the agency finds that an 
individual has wilfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or failed to 
file a return on time. In order to defend yourself against such an 
adverse personnel action under H.R. 1563, you must demonstrate that 
your failure to pay your taxes or file a return on time stemmed from a 
``reasonable cause.''
  In other words, this bill deputizes agency administrators, managers, 
and foremen as bonafide tax investigators--authorizing them to examine 
and determine the tax compliance status of agency employees. In 
addition, H.R. 1563 essentially requires all federal workers to 
affirmatively defend their failure to pay taxes or file a return on 
time by requiring them to provide agency management with specific and 
satisfactory reasons for their non-compliance. If you're behind on your 
taxes because you went through a health care crisis and want to keep 
your federal job, you're going to have to share the details of your 
medical emergency with your employing agency under this bill. If you're 
behind on your taxes because you're going through a divorce but still 
want to keep working at your federal agency, you're going to have to 
disclose the facts surrounding your divorce to your federal manager.
  Now, I understand that this bill may seek to address those rare 
instances where federal bad actors intentionally try to cheat on their 
taxes. In practice, however, H.R. 1563 will broadly diminish the tax 
privacy rights of all federal employees. That's in spite of the 97% tax 
compliance rate for federal workers reported to our committee by the 
I.R.S. for 2014. It's also in spite of the existing federal payment 
levy program that already allows the I.R.S. to levy federal salaries 
and wages in order to recover delinquent tax debts in a cost-effective 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the solution to achieving 100% tax 
compliance across the federal workforce is to waive the individual 
privacy rights of dedicated federal workers across the board. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unfortunately, all that is in this bill is pure symbolism without any 
substance, and it is very, very sad. I am disappointed to say that the 
House majority seems more interested in ideology and political 
messaging rather than facts and evidence.
  Here are the facts. There is no problem to solve. The IRS confirmed 
that they have no problem collecting delinquent taxes from Federal 
employees. Federal employees have a much higher tax compliance rate 
than the American public and even Members of Congress and their staffs.
  CBO has estimated that implementation of this measure will actually 
increase the cost to American taxpayers.
  I, again, ask the question: When somebody is fired and does not have 
a job, where does the money come from? The fact is that we already have 
mechanisms in place to get the money. I do believe with all my heart 
that this is another effort to demonize our Federal employees, and it 
is very, very sad.
  I urge all Members to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here are the facts. I just love it when Washington, D.C., says, Oh, 
there is no problem. We have got a hundred thousand-plus people--
Federal employees--who don't pay about $1.1 billion in taxes. That 
number is up from $962 million in 2008.
  The problem is getting worse, but there is one department, one 
agency, where it is getting better, where it did improve, and it was in 
the IRS. We should pat them on the back.
  There is one fundamental thing that we changed. In a bill that was 
voted on and supported by Mr. Cummings and Mr. Hoyer and the 400-plus 
Members of this body, the Congress gave the ability and the authority 
to the head of the IRS to terminate the employment of one of their 
workers if they are not paying Federal taxes.
  Guess what. Now, they have the best tax compliance rate in the 
Federal Government. Let's give that same tool to the rest of the 
departments and agencies.
  You know what is a slap in a face to the Federal worker? When you 
don't get rid of the bad apples. When you have got somebody who is 
thumbing their nose, not playing by the rules, not doing what they are 
supposed to be doing. Guess what. It goes into the morale of the 
institution.
  I think, as a Federal employee being paid by the taxpayers, one of 
your fundamental responsibilities is to file and pay your Federal 
taxes.
  A fact: last year, we had 24,833 people who, as Federal employees, 
didn't even file a return. Can we solve that? Absolutely, we can solve 
that. We should require it.
  When somebody goes to fill out an application, they should certify 
that they are fully compliant with the taxes. If there is a hardship, 
if they are in dispute over taxes owed, if their spouse gets into 
problems, if they are having their wages garnished, there are all of 
these outs.
  Even at the finish line, based on an amendment offered by Mr. Lynch, 
which we accepted, you get another 180 days to then go forward to your 
administrator or whoever is leading your department and agency and say: 
I am valuable; I am trying.
  Still, the leader can say: Oh, you know what? I am going to give you 
a waiver or allow you to continue.
  If we don't give them the authority--which they have at the IRS--then 
you limit the tools, and you are not getting rid of the people who are 
the bad apples.
  We can make sure we get the best Federal employees but weed out the 
bad apples. I want to see people on both sides of the aisle say: let's 
pat the back of the overwhelming majority who are patriotic, hard-
working, dedicated employees, but we are going to get rid of the bad 
apples.
  That is what this bill does. I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1563, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________