Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) for the purpose of controlling the time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 231, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non- Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I first want to start by thanking my ranking member, Mr. Elijah Cummings. I feel for him and for his city and what they are having to go through in Baltimore. I know he would have liked to have been here, but I have the utmost respect for him, and I wish nothing but the best for the people of Baltimore. I thank him for the decorum we have had and for the success we have had thus far on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We have had good debates. We have disagreed on issues, but I think we have probably agreed on most issues that we have had come before us. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from the District, who cares passionately about her service and the people of Washington, D.C., and I know it comes from her heart as she speaks about these. We have had good success on our committee in having these vigorous debates but having done so in a professional manner, and I thank her for that kind of discussion that we have had. Again, I know that she speaks from her heart on this. Madam Speaker, we do believe that this was a timely and appropriate bill to bring up. I know that it doesn't happen very often. It is not a common occurrence. That is because a lot of what Washington, D.C., does and passes is not something that is of any controversy whatsoever. Yet, when you have the attorney general for the District of Columbia saying this has problems with the Constitution and problems in the law and when you have Mayor Gray making the same case that this has problems, I hope that both sides will recognize, no matter how they vote, that this law that was transmitted to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee--to Congress--is problematic, and they have admitted as such. They know that it is problematic, and I think we have a role and a responsibility to add our voice to that. That is what the Constitution calls for. The Constitution makes it clear that Congress does have the ability to exercise the ultimate legislative authority over the District of Columbia. In the typical case, Congress plays no part in it as the overwhelming majority of pieces of legislation that get transmitted to us continue to sail on, but the RHNDA legislation, as passed by the D.C. Council, has left us with no choice but to act. The bill affects the hiring practices of all D.C. employers, but it provides no exemption for religious or political organizations that work to advance certain beliefs regarding reproductive health. Because of this, the bill fails to ensure that protections are guaranteed under the First Amendment. As I said before, former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, wrote the D.C. Council twice, warning that this bill was unconstitutional. To fix the problem, Mayor Gray recommended the council include an exemption for religious or political organizations, but the council and the current mayor ignored Mayor Gray's request, which would have alleviated the constitutional concerns. She ignored that. The current mayor ignored that. If they had taken Mayor Gray's advice, I don't think we would be standing here today, talking about this bill. Washington, D.C.'s current mayor, Ms. Bowser, also saw the problems with the bill. She requested the council pass temporary--and that is important, ``temporary''--emergency legislation clarifying the bill doesn't require an employer to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions that an employer does not agree with. That is an important part of this discussion, but the legislation is only temporary. The bill remains unclear as to what it requires the D.C. employers to cover. The other point that I would put in place here is that Washington, D.C., has been a city for a long time--for a couple hundred years, I think--and this legislation has not been in place. We are not trying to erase something. We are saying that the bill that was transmitted to us is problematic, and there are ways to remedy and fix that. Some would say, well, it has been fixed by this temporary--again, temporary--piece of legislation, but that hasn't been transmitted to us. The D.C. Council had an opportunity to provide us with that temporary legislation, but they didn't. Maybe they will in the future--I don't know--but that is not the bill that is before us today. What I am arguing for is the same thing in concept as from the Washington, D.C., attorney general. It is the same thing in concept that D.C. Mayor Gray has said, and it is the same thing, quite frankly, that the current mayor has argued is problematic, because she wanted to clarify that the very arguments we hear back to us are that their bill doesn't actually do that, that we are not trying to effect that--in essence, saying that we are right, that we are not trying to get into this dangerous, unprecedented territory which a lot of us find offensive. Madam Speaker, I think what we have done is very reasonable in our approach. We have very differing approaches and mindsets. I get that, but I do appreciate the debate. That is what we are supposed to be doing in Congress. I appreciate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and, certainly, our ranking member, Mr. Cummings. He is a good man, and he is in a tough situation. Again, our thoughts and prayers are with him and with the people of Baltimore and of Maryland. I would hope they would look to his leadership and what he is telling the people, which is to calmly, calmly discuss these issues as we are calmly discussing these issues here tonight. Again, I urge the passage of this. I think it is an appropriate thing to do, and it is a timely thing to do. The clock has run out. We only have 30 days. The time is right upon us, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution tonight. Finally, I will say I really do appreciate Mrs. Black for her heart and passion on this issue and the good work that she has done. She cares deeply about these issues. We all do.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

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. Now, there are lots of reasons people can't do that. There are people who need to have their wages garnished, and they are. There are people who are disputing what the IRS said. Again, this bill doesn't affect those people. The adjudication process continues on, and this bill doesn't affect those people. As a last resort, we need a tool that the IRS has for its employees. We need that tool for the other departments and agencies because, like it or not, the law requires that we pay taxes. Five years ago, President Obama directed his administration to crack down on tax cheats. It was specifically targeting and discussing contractors, but I would argue that the same principle for contractors should be in place for Federal employees. How can you look the contractors and the employees in the eyes and say, Well, we have got two totally different standards of principles? The principle is the same--pay your taxes, and there is not a problem. If you are in trouble and if you are trying to get out of it, not a problem. We will work with you. Yet, for those of you who are just screwing over the American taxpayer, bye-bye. You can't even apply. The President said: All across this country, there are people who meet their obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You support your families. You pay the taxes you owe--because it's a fundamental responsibility of citizenship. I totally and wholeheartedly agree. The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act makes individuals with seriously delinquent tax debt ineligible for Federal employment. It is defined as an outstanding Federal tax debt that has been assessed and may be collected by levy or court proceeding. The legislation does not affect employees who are working to settle their tax disputes or resolving outstanding liabilities. I want to also remind everybody that the committee and I, as the prime sponsor, accepted every Democrat amendment that was offered--100 percent. Several other safeguards are carved out in the bill, including provisions offered by the minority in the previous Congresses. Individuals are provided full due process rights and have an additional 180 days to demonstrate their debts meet one of the exemptions of the bill. That was, I believe, offered by Congressman Lynch. We accepted it. We thought we would get broader support because of it, and we would hope we would today. The bill also provides a financial hardship exemption if the individual's service is in the best interest of the United States. The person who is leading that department or agency still has discretion. If he says, It is in the best interest, in my judgment, for the United States to continue to have this person serve, he is allowed to continue to serve. The bill demonstrates a simple principle: individuals collecting Federal salaries funded by taxpayers have to follow the rules and pay their taxes. Those charged with the stewardship of our Federal resources and programs should not be delinquent in their taxes. As all Americans file their taxes today, so should Federal employees, and most of them do--in fact, at better rates than civilians do. Last month, in testimony before the committee, the GAO warned Congress of tens of thousands of Federal employees who were eligible for security clearances but who still had unpaid tax debts. I would argue that that is a potential security risk. It shows a vulnerability. During the hearing, Members discussed the IRS employees' high rate of tax compliance. From 2009 to 2013, IRS employees had a 0.8 percent delinquency rate compared to 3.3 percent for civilian workers throughout the government. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which, again, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cummings, and a host of other people voted in favor of, requires the removal of IRS employees who are found to have willfully failed to have filed their tax returns and who have willfully understated their Federal tax liabilities. The House passed the conference report for this bill by a vote of 402-8. Overwhelming. I have never heard another Member complain that the IRS has this provision in place. Let's even the playing field. Let's give that same tool to the rest of the Federal Government. Don't give it just to the IRS. Give it to the Department of Defense. Give it to the other departments and agencies because the financial results of that work. This bill makes Federal workers subject to the same standard as that for IRS employees. Not all Federal workers are tax cheats. This is not about politics. I appreciate the good work that has gone on in this bill. Unfortunately, despite past efforts, we have not been able to get this bill over the finish line. I hope the House will again support the bill, as it did in 2012, and that the Senate will act on this bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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.

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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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.

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. 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. 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. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1562) to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate being here today. We have done this in a good bipartisan way. This is a good, strong bill. This bill has come under a previous Congress and done quite well. H.R. 1562 will increase tax compliance by Federal contractors and grant recipients and deny contracts or grants to those with seriously delinquent tax debt. I am pleased to, again, present this bill to the House with Representative Jackie Speier, like we did in the past. I also appreciate the help of Representative John Carter in his cosponsorship. The bill has a long history of bipartisan support, including from then-Senator Obama and President Obama. While he cannot claim that he has commented specifically on this exact bill, this bill before us was something that was originally introduced by then-Senator Obama years ago. Five years ago, President Obama directed his administration to crack down on tax cheats that are seeking government contracts. 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. The steps I'm directing today and the steps I'm calling on Congress to take are just basic common sense. They're not going to eliminate all of the waste or abuse in government contracting in one fell swoop. Going forward, we'll also have to do more to hold contractors more accountable not just for paying taxes, but for following other laws as well. I wholeheartedly and totally agree with the President's approach on this. On April 15, 2013, the House passed this very similar piece of legislation by a vote of 407-0. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act. Two years later, we are considering essentially the same bill today with some very minor changes. For example, the definition of ``seriously delinquent tax debt'' now exempts individuals determined by the IRS to be under economic hardship. Let me remind my colleagues of what this bill does. H.R. 1562 denies contracts or grants to those with seriously delinquent tax debt. The bill requires contractors and potential grant recipients to certify their tax status when submitting a proposal for a contract or a grant. If the agency finds the contractor or grantee to have seriously delinquent tax debt, then they would be referred for suspension or debarment and would not be eligible for new awards. There are exceptions in the bill for those that are trying to do the right thing so they should not be covered under the definition of ``seriously delinquent tax debt.'' Such people, including those who are paying their back taxes through debt installment plans or in the process of hearings with the IRS to finalize a determination of their debt or experiencing economic hardship as determined by the IRS, have exceptions. In 2007, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation to address this contractor accountability issue. The bill before us today is simple. If contractors and those applying for grants don't pay their taxes, they will not be eligible for lucrative Federal contracts or grants. At its core, this bill is about contractor and grant recipient accountability with taxpayer dollars. Whether we like it or not, the law requires we pay taxes. We expect the same from contractors and grant recipients. To give you some perspective on how much money we are talking about, the Federal Government spends about $1 trillion annually on contracts and grants, $1 trillion on just contracts and grants. Most recently, in fiscal year 2014, the Federal Government spent $444 billion on contracts and $591 billion on grants. That is a lot of money and demands a lot of tax compliance. Over the years, the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--has identified thousands of Federal contractors with substantial amounts of unpaid taxes. Here are a few examples given to us by the GAO. Tens of thousands of recipients of Federal grant and direct assistance programs collectively owed more than $790 million in Federal taxes as of September 2006. Approximately 27,000 defense contractors owed about $3 billion; 33,000 civilian agency contractors owed roughly $3.3 billion, and 3,800 General Services Administration contractors owed about $1.4 billion in unpaid taxes. We are talking about roughly $7.7 billion in uncollected taxes. At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients owed more than $750 million in known unpaid Federal taxes while receiving over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. We have 3,700 contractors that already owe $750 million; and what do we do? We gave them $24 billion in additional contracts. GAO also found contractors were not paying payroll taxes or owed substantial property or other assets and still--still--didn't pay their taxes. For example, under a VA-HHS contract for healthcare-related services, a contractor was paid more than $100,000 in Federal funds. The contractor also had an unpaid tax debt of more than $18 million. The owner was purchasing multimillion dollar properties and unrelated luxury vehicles while not fully paying its payroll taxes. It goes on and on. The tax accountability problem has become a potential national security problem. In 2014, the GAO found 83,000 Department of Defense employees and contractors who held or were eligible for security clearances had unpaid Federal tax debt totaling more than $730 million. Now, not all contractors are tax cheats; the vast majority do pay their taxes on time and in full. Those who fail to satisfy their tax debt have a cost advantage over those who do pay their taxes. You are competing for Federal contracts; you are competing for grants. Some pay taxes; some don't. Who do you think is going to give the lowest price and potentially get the next grant or contract? The person who can undercut them because they don't pay their taxes--it is just not fair. Further, many fulfill dangerous missions, invest in cutting-edge technology, and provide assistance for the poor and others in need. Contractors who do not play by the rules should be held accountable. Unfortunately, despite our past efforts, we haven't been able to get this bill over the finish line. I hope the House will again support this bill, as it did in the year 2013, and that the Senate will finally bring this bill up and pass it as they should. Hopefully, this Congress will be a bit different. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1562. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to reiterate my pleasure in working with both sides of the aisle on many, many pieces of legislation. We don't always agree, but I think the tone and tenor that is happening in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is going in the right direction. We have worked well with our staff. That wouldn't happen without the leadership of the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, and I do appreciate it. We have voted for this bill unanimously in the past. It is a new Congress with new Members, but I would encourage this passage today. I believe in the spirit in which the President and previously Senator Obama has urged that Congress act on this issue. It is imperative that we act on this issue today, hopeful, with passage, that we would get the Senate to act as well. We are talking about billions of dollars of taxpayer money. It is the fair and right thing to do. I urge the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that this bill bypasses individuals. To the contrary, the bill says, ``and impacted parties within the private sector.'' The definition of ``private sector'' under UMRA--the term ``private sector'' means ``all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.'' Any assertion on this floor that this gives unilateral priority to the individual corporations and bypasses the individuals, we are trying to give people who are affected by these rules--we are trying to give them the opportunity to be heard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, the prime sponsor of this bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.