Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask for the amount of time on both sides, please?

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. We have other speakers. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member on the Small Business Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it's now my special privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the person who led our efforts, and the health care reform is a testimony to her career, our leader.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as I think everybody knows, the two committees, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, work closely together, and as chairs, Mr. Waxman and I were able to, with others, work so closely. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of our committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. From the outset, I made clear my reaction to IRS mismanagement that called for relieving of duties of two people. But what the Republicans today are doing is using the IRS as a bootstrap to express their hatred of health care reform. I want to say this and challenge anybody to refute it: assertions that the IRS will have access to personal health information are wrong and are deliberately misleading. The IRS will only receive routine information--name, address, family size, incomes, coverage status-- needed to provide tax credits. That's it. The rest are falsehoods. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bills today and the bill on Friday on ACA are more about politics than policy--politics at any cost by the Republican majority. They want to change the subject from their inability to legislate and their refusal to go to conference on a budget so that we could implement long-term deficit reduction and not threaten our economy with default again this fall. In their abysmal failure to act on jobs legislation all of these months, there has been no real effort to join hands on their part on jobs--the number one concern of the American people. So they hope to launch their so-called ``Republican playbook'' for August by which they have told their Members to go home and echo the same message and reaffirm their theme--fighting Washington for you. They have failed miserably to fight in Washington for you, the American people. There was terrible mismanagement at the IRS in the Tax Exempt Division. I was among the first to call for the Acting Commissioner and Lois Lerner to be removed from their duties; but instead of exploiting the deep problems at the IRS Tax Exempt Division, instead of exploiting them for political purposes, we should be fixing these problems and restoring the trust of the American people in that entity, the entity to which they voluntarily pay taxes. The Republicans have desperately sought to tie their antigovernment message to the President. Let's review the Republican approach, some of it. Chairman Issa said: This was a targeting of the President's political enemies, effectively, and lies about it during the election year so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards. Chairman Hal Rogers said: Of course, the enemies list out of the White House that IRS was engaged in shutting down or trying to shut down the conservative political viewpoint across the country--an enemies list that rivals those of another President some time ago. Totally, totally false. The facts were clear that both conservative and liberal groups were in the groups set aside by the IRS for further scrutiny, and when that became clear, the Republicans shifted to the notion that the conservative groups received more scrutiny. When all evidence to date has indicated that there was no political motivation involved and that no one outside of the IRS was involved, the majority of Republicans here shifted to the notion that they don't have all of the documents, but the political motivation has been that of the Republicans. I want to also, at this time, express our deep disappointment with the work of the IG and the audit that he did on the Tax Exempt Division. He failed to disclose that both conservative and liberal groups were set aside for further scrutiny. He failed to disclose that he asked his investigative arm to review 5,500 emails and that they found no evidence of political motivation. This flawed report set the stage for the Republicans' manipulation of the facts, and now we are going to spend months cleaning up that work. As to the bills before us today, these three bills, we agree that the IRS should stop unnecessary conferences, that the employees should not do their work with any political motivation, and that taxpayer rights should be codified in the law. This bill would impose a moratorium on conferences held by the IRS until the inspector general has submitted a report to Congress that certifies that all recommendations from the TIGTA audit of the IRS conference in Anaheim have been implemented. This audit report included nine recommendations, as the majority has now said, for the IRS to improve the oversight of conferences. I just want the facts to be put on the table here as to what has happened by the leadership now of the IRS. Three of the nine recommendations have been fully implemented, and it is anticipated that the remaining six recommendations will be put in place shortly, likely within 3 months. We all agree with the recommendations. The IRS has already agreed to those recommendations, and importantly, it must be acknowledged it is in the process of implementing all nine of these recommendations over the next few months. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Might I ask the gentleman, are you ready to close?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think all of the recommendations make sense. We Democrats--throughout our Caucus and the President, all of us--joined in making clear what we thought of the mismanagement within the IRS and what we thought about the abuse of conferences. As I said before, with this leadership of IRS appointed by the President, all of these recommendations either have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. So, before the end of the year--I think well before it--this one problem--and there are others-- will be resolved. I support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may consume. I support this bill, and I think everybody will. I think we all agree that IRS employees, indeed, should perform their duties in accordance with the taxpayers' rights outlined in this bill. These rights have been outlined a number of times in the National Taxpayer Advocate's annual report to Congress. In fact, Democrats in the past have introduced legislation to codify these rights, and the National Taxpayer Advocate's support for codifying these rights dates back to 2007. I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me spend a few minutes, if I might, discussing the context of this legislation and a bit of what's in it. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 enacted a list of 10 ``acts or omissions'' for which IRS employees face mandatory firing. This bill would amend the 10th act or omission to expand existing grounds for termination to include political motivation. We all agree that IRS employees should not act with a political purpose. We all passionately believe that. But I want it to be clear that because of the environment in which this bill is being considered, there is absolutely no evidence that any IRS employees acted with political motivation in the matter under investigation. The inspector general reviewed and concluded that ``there is no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.'' The inspector general has come before Congress repeatedly and testified numerous times that he has found no evidence of political motivation. At the very first hearing on this matter that was held in mid-May, the inspector general was asked if he found any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications. He answered, ``We did not, sir.'' When questioned by my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott, whether he stands behind the assertion that ``no one acted out of malice or political motivation,'' the inspector general answered, ``We have no evidence at this time to contradict that assertion, sir.'' When my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Becerra, asked him if it is correct that he did not find any evidence of political motivation here, the inspector general replied, ``That is correct, sir.'' In addition--and I want to emphasize this--staff from the Ways and Means Committee and Government Oversight Committees of this House have interviewed 17 IRS employees directly involved in this matter under oath, and none of these employees have suggested that the IRS actions were either politically motivated or the result of influence by any individual or organization outside of the IRS. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the IG asked his investigative arm to review 5,500 emails. The head of the investigation concluded, ``The emails indicated the organizations needed to be pulled because the IRS employees were not sure how to process them, not because they wanted to stall or hinder the application. There was no indication that pulling these applications was politically motivated. The email traffic indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the applications so they pulled them.'' It's clear that there's no evidence of political motivation by the IRS under investigation now. Indeed, there has been too much political motivation in this entire effort by Republicans. I want to say just a few words about what's in the bill, and the gentleman from Ohio and I have discussed this. The majority did not follow regular order. This bill did not come before the Ways and Means Committee. It essentially was not considered either at the subcommittee level, I believe, or the full committee level. So the Republican majority, in my judgment, did not carefully draft their bill to ensure that it was consistent with the current statute. If it had done so, there might have been improvement to this legislation and added the language ``willful failure'' as it appears under four of the other acts and omissions. I think this bill will go to the Senate, as it should. I hope if it considers it, it will take up this issue of whether or not there should be a willful requirement in terms of its conduct because we're talking about the ability administratively to discharge an employee. I think if there is political motivation on their part, action should be taken. I think it is also important that we understand that there had to be some willfulness in that action. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee and the vice chair of our caucus.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the gentleman from Ohio ready to close?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. There's no question there should be no political motivation. So far there's been no evidence there was any. This bill is being brought up in a context. It's outlined in the Republican playbook and, that is, go home and essentially go after the government. I think we should make sure in Washington that we act so the government acts on our behalf. So everybody can reach their own judgment. I've told the gentleman from Ohio that the way you drafted it--and I'll just read this. The present language says ``threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit.'' That's the present language. Threatening is willful by definition. You can't threaten somebody unwillfully. Instead, we have new language, and I want to pick up the point of Mr. Crowley in terms of regular procedure. I mentioned it before. It's important that we follow regular order in this institution. The bills before oversight were brought before the committee. We had no chance to act on this, and I would have suggested that the word ``willful'' be placed before it. However, everyone will vote as they wish on this. I think it will pass. It will go over to the Senate, and I will suggest if this passes and the Senate decides to act, that they take a clear look at whether there needs to be a requirement of an intentional misdeed as defined here because what we're talking about is the discharge of an employee; and whether it's IRS or some other government employee, whether in a local unit or any unit, it seems to me--or in the military, for example--I think we want to have some consideration of due process for them. So that's the basis for the discussion here. This bill, I think, talks about political motivation. And I just wanted to add, as I end, the thought expressed before. There has been no evidence of political motivation by an IRS employee, and the effort to try to tie what happened there to the executive was an example of pure political motivation and terribly misguided and I think a harmful kind of connection when it did not exist. We should not do that in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. At this time, I insert into the Record a document showing benefits of the health care reform law in the 16th Congressional District of Ohio. Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 16th Congressional District of Ohio Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013 The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of American families almost immediately after it was signed into law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance coverage. This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Renacci's district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following the 2010 Census. As a result of the law: 4,800 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan. More than 10,100 seniors in the district received prescription drug discounts worth $13.7 million, an average discount of $510 per person in 2011, $770 in 2012, and $990 thus far in 2013. 104,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible. 228,000 individuals in the district--including 51,000 children and 92,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible. 200,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. Because of these protections, over 10,200 consumers in the district received approximately $800,000 in insurance company rebates in 2011 and 2012--an average rebate of $133 per family in 2012 and $139 per family in 2011. Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health insurers. 272,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014. Up to 68,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition. In addition, the 37,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for financial assistance. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield the balance of our time on this bill to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of Energy and Commerce and who is proudly one of the coauthors of health care reform after so many years of his efforts.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I submit this report, which shows that hundreds of thousands of constituents in the 7th district of Tennessee benefit from various provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 7th Congressional District of Tennessee Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013 The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of American families almost immediately after it was signed into law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance coverage. This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Blackburn's district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following the 2010 Census. As a result of the law: 5,900 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan. More than 8,000 seniors in the district received prescription drug discounts worth $10 million, an average discount of $580 per person in 2011, $610 in 2012, and $960 thus far in 2013. 116,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible. 191,000 individuals in the district--including 50,000 children and 75,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible. 181,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. Because of these protections, over 27,900 consumers in the district received approximately $4 million in insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate of $69 per family in 2012 and $201 per family in 2011. Up to 44,000 children in the district with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health insurers. 208,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014. Up to 91,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition. In addition, the 39,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for financial assistance.