Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion here about abuse. There was mismanagement. I was among those who indicated that the person or the two people most responsible should be relieved of their duties. It is also true, when we asked the inspector general, ``Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax- exemption applications,'' the answer of the inspector general was, ``We did not, sir,'' period. There is another abuse here, and that is the abuse of 501(c)(4)s. It is scandalous. They are supposed to be doing social welfare. What has happened is they have used the mask of legality, many of these, to essentially become political organizations. That is the scandal. Essentially what the Republican Party is doing here is saying that they want to essentially pull a mask over what is scandalous. As Mr. Sarbanes said, this bill goes in the wrong direction. We need more disclosure, not less. The Achilles' heel in the argument of Mr. Roskam and others is this: A foreign government has to now disclose to IRS; a foreign individual would have to disclose a contribution that was illegal. They essentially want to eliminate that requirement in terms of this form altogether--eliminate it--so that there would be no way of knowing through that operation when there was a violation by a foreign government or an individual trying to influence the political process of this country. It is bad enough that domestic money reigns so supremely. Essentially what the majority here wants to do is add foreign operations to that process. You say that speech is power. But speech backed up by hidden money essentially undermines the democratic processes of this country. What you are doing today is coming forth here and essentially wanting to give a further imprimatur to this distortion of the democratic process. Money reigns too strongly in the political process, and you now essentially want to say: if it is foreign, all the better. It is terrible. It is terrible what is going on in this country today in terms of the power of money over the political process. You make it worse by essentially inviting foreign entities to join in that distortion of democracy in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What is happening today is further evidence that the Republicans are simply not doing their job. There is real work to be done. It is simply inexcusable that action has not yet happened to prepare for the Zika virus. That would be real action. Helping the people of Flint get clean drinking water, in my home State, would be something real. There is no budget resolution that has been considered here on the House floor. Raising the minimum wage would also be real, and it would help lift many families out of poverty. Closing tax loopholes and making the Tax Code fairer would be real. Instead, today, we are voting on two senses of Congress resolutions. Doing so provides further evidence that the Republicans not only are not acting on those real problems mentioned earlier but are in denial on another real issue that needs action--climate change. The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and the consensus is clear, and we have seen the impacts of climate change, virtually, every day in our country and around the world. This week, the CBO, led by a Director appointed by the majority here, released a report that identified the effects of climate change as a potential risk to the Federal budget. According to that report, the cost of hurricane damage is projected to be $35 billion more than it is today because of climate change. The report stated: ``Human activities around the world, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and widespread changes in land use, are producing growing emissions of greenhouse gases.'' Climate change requires all of us, including the Republicans here who are in total denial, to come to our senses and to act on the challenge of climate change. This sense of Congress resolution, like the second one, completely fails to meet that challenge. I urge its rejection. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans don't like the President's budget proposal. They have never been able to bring their own to the floor-- never. They talk about economic growth and jobs. This administration has a proud record of creating jobs. They haven't done all we want, but they are successful in important respects. This administration has had an energy policy that has really been working well, as can be seen by what has happened. There remain problems with it, and we will have some debate about where we go in the future. The problem is that the Republicans start from a premise that is grievously wrong. They are in denial of climate change, and everything they do relating to energy stems from that. They are out of step with the American people. A recent Gallup Poll showed this: 64 percent of Americans are worried a great deal or a fair amount about global warming. Fifty-nine percent of Americans say the effects of global warming have already begun. Only 10 percent of Americans say the effects of global warming will never happen--only 10 percent. Sixty-five percent of Americans, according to this Gallup Poll of recent times, say our planet's temperature increases over the last 100 years are primarily caused by human activities rather than natural causes. But what do we hear from the now-leading Republican? Well, going back a few years, this is what he had to say: ``The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.'' That was 4 years ago, more or less. Now the same person, who is now leading the Republican Party, says this: ``I am not a great believer in manmade climate change.'' ``If you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s, and now they have global warming, although now they don't know if they have global warming.'' So we have today, from the Republican majority, our two sense of Congress resolutions. What is really needed instead is for the Republican Party to come to their senses on climate change, like the vast majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), one of our many Members-- but this person in particular--who has devoted so much of his deep intelligence and his energy to this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to control the time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Janice Ann Mays on her retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives, and to thank her for over 40 years of public service. During a career spanning over 40 years, from 1975 to 2016, she served the House of Representatives as Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Committee on Ways and Means. She is a friend to all and well known for referring to everyone who meets her affectionately as ``Sweetie.'' Janice received her undergraduate degree from Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia. She then received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Georgia College of Law in Athens, Georgia. Janice joined the Ways and Means Committee staff on December 15, 1975. She was one of three Tax Counsels and the only woman. Janice was given a small desk behind a door in 1104 Longworth. She was paid less than the men on her team and found women often excluded from organizations where tax policies were developed. To say that Janice overcame obstacles and flourished is an understatement. She worked hard and went to school in the evening. She received a Masters of Law in Taxation from the Georgetown University School of Law. She was a founding member of an organization that gathered women in D.C. working on tax policy to discuss ideas and legislative initiatives. In May 1987, she was promoted to the Committee's Chief Tax Counsel and Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Select Revenue. In 1993, she became the Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Committee. Janice's exhaustive efforts on behalf of the Congress and legendary work on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 have improved the lives of millions of Americans. She has managed with grace a Committee with broad jurisdiction that touches all aspects of American life--tax, trade, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and many other income security issues. If you ask Janice about her proudest accomplishment, she will smile and quickly tell you that it is encouraging people to work in government. She is proud of the Committee staff she has built. She has been a friend and a mentor to many on Capitol Hill--from interns to Staff Directors and Members. Staff on both sides of the aisle admire her and look up to her. For so many she has served as the model Capitol Hill staff person. If you catch her in a moment of reflection, she will say that it is leaving the people she has met, worked with, and mentored that cause her the most sadness. I know I speak for the Members of the Ways and Means Committee-- present and past--when I say we are truly honored to have worked with Janice. It is hard to imagine the Ways and Means Committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, without Janice Mays. Her service has epitomized the very best in public service: hard work, loyalty and complete dedication to making government work for the people. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in thanking Janice for the lasting mark she has left on the Ways and Means Committee and the U.S. Congress. I wish her the best as she moves on to the next chapter in her career and her life. Congratulations. We will truly miss you.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding. The gentleman has worked so hard on this with so many others. Mr. Speaker, this fiduciary rule has had a long, dedicated and deliberative journey. The administration first issued proposed regulations on this issue in 2010. They received many comments from consumer and industry groups, and they decided to redraft the proposal. That new proposal, issued last year, prompted more than 3,000 comment letters. The administration and the Department of Labor actively took these comments and the numerous consultations on all sides of this issue into account when they prepared the final draft of the rule. It is the way government should act. What the Department of Labor rule does is strengthen the trust between a financial adviser and their client. It says that a fiduciary or financial adviser must act in their clients' best interest. The Republicans oppose this rule guided by their ideological blinders. This rule is important because when the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, was first passed in 1974, 401(k) plans did not yet exist and IRAs had just been created. Today, more Americans have 401(k) plans than pension plans and must manage their own investments. Republicans today continue their claim that this rule will make it more difficult for small businesses and low- and middle-income Americans to get financial advice because it will cost them more. The fact is that conflicted investment advice costs American families billions of dollars every year. As the White House said: ``some firms have incentivized advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns-- costing American families an estimated $17 billion a year.'' It continues: ``If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 88, he would veto the bill.'' This rule-making process isn't top down; this is from the bottom up. Listening to people, listening to everybody--to everybody--and coming out with a rule that is responsive to the needs of the American people, that is really what this is about. Instead, we have Republicans coming forth again, essentially, as I said, with their blinders on, opposing this rule, when they know that if it ever passed the Senate--and I don't think it will--it would be vetoed by the President. I strongly urge that my colleagues vote against this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with the chairman today. We have welcomed the opportunity--indeed, the absolute necessity--to try to work together. So I want to place what we are doing today in some perspective. It has been nearly 6 years since Congress last passed a miscellaneous tariff bill. We are just now establishing a process to consider a future MTB bill, which would not happen until the end of 2017. This years-long delay has hurt U.S. manufacturers and our manufacturing competitiveness. It is long past time for this House to finally take action and to move forward. MTB legislation boils down to one thing, basically: supporting and growing manufacturing jobs right here in America. And very importantly, these jobs do not come at the expense of others. In 2010, the bipartisan, thorough, and transparent process we established to consider MTB bills worked effectively. It included direct input from the public, the administration, and the International Trade Commission. The committee then posted all of these comments from the public and the administration on a publicly available Web site. And perhaps most importantly, that input was crucial in making sure that domestic production was not competing with imported products in the bill. At that time, Republican leaders in Congress publicly objected to the MTB bill, conflating it with earmarks. When Democrats brought the bill to the floor in 2010, Republicans bucked their leadership and almost en masse supported the bill because of its importance to U.S. manufacturers and American jobs. It ultimately passed the House 378-43. Unfortunately, as the Republicans became the majority, action on MTB was frozen. For years, the result was injury to domestic manufacturing and the jobs it supports throughout our country. This bill shifts the responsibility to formally propose to ITC. I support the bill today before us because it retains all of the uniquely strong provisions on transparency developed in 2010, ensuring that all potential MTBs are thoroughly vetted. It provides a chance for valuable input from a variety of stakeholders. This input is the key to ensuring that MTB bills do not undermine domestic product or jobs. The process makes sure that the benefits provided by the bill support and create American jobs without hurting our domestic manufacturers. Additionally, this bill allows a Member of Congress to object to and, essentially, remove an individual MTB from the final legislative package. So it has been a frustrating 6 years, and I say this with some emotion because we have worked hard over these years to try to move, often hitting obstacles. So it has been a frustrating 6 years since this Congress passed an MTB. It has been even more frustrating for manufacturing across the country, but I believe we have reached a sufficient path forward now that will ultimately be beneficial for American manufacturers and for American workers. It is more than overdue. It is about time a solution has been found, not one that I initially favored. But it is important to move ahead. So, therefore, I strongly support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will be very brief. We have welcomed the chance to work together, and I want to thank the staff on both sides for doing that. There were obstacles, I think unfortunate ones, in terms of the interpretation of the rules of this House. Lots of jobs were lost. Tariffs were placed on goods when we could have avoided that. I am proud that, in 2010, when we were in the majority and we worked together up to a point, we developed the most transparent procedures. They were given the gold seal. Everything had to be out in the open. Everything had to be there for the public to see. If any one of us on either side of the aisle, Democratic or Republican, Senate or House, objected to a provision, saying, for example, that it would impact jobs in the United States, that provision was gone. As a result of that effort in 2010, when it came up for a vote, only one Democrat of all of us voted against it. So time has been lost. Jobs have been lost. We have lost some ground on manufacturing that never should have happened. But the important thing today is that we are moving ahead and we are going to pass a bill that sets in motion a procedure that will go into effect the end of next year. So I hope we learn from this experience that we should not be tied up by procedures in this Congress. Instead, we should look at what is the real impact of what we do on jobs in this country. These are basically very middle-income jobs, and we have lost too many. We are now trying to recapture some of that lost ground with this procedure. I think it is something that we now need to adopt. So I urge all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and, I hope, the vast majority of you on your side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we will join together at long last to pass what we have come to know as MTB. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we are facing today is the worst kind of demagoguery, and really it descends to propaganda. Look, the reason the phones aren't being answered is because the Republican majority has failed to answer to its responsibilities. The appropriations have been going down. The last 5 years, the budget cut for IRS has been close to $1 billion. So you try to hide from your failure and you point your finger everyplace except where it belongs--yourselves. You want to say no bonuses to the 80,000 people because this House majority has failed to meet its basic responsibility, and that is to fund so that there can be adequate resources to answer the phones. You are the ones who have shut it off. So the problem is not a lack of strategy; it is a lack of resources. The House Republicans are trying to pass the buck because they are not providing the bucks necessary for adequate taxpayer services. We had this chart yesterday, and here it is again. This shows, in the yellow, the amount of resources. In the blue, it shows the average time to answer the phone. As the resources have gone down, the time it takes has gone up. That is a simple fact. The only time that changed was when this institution provided some adequate resources, and so the time to answer the phones went down. Now you are back at it again, diminishing the resources, and you are essentially blaming the 80,000 people who don't get the adequate resources to do their jobs. Now you say let's have a plan. There is already a system, but you don't provide the resources to carry it out. You are saying come up with a plan that will be looked at and approved by the inspector general that doesn't have that responsibility. So that is why the White House stands in opposition, and I read: ``Legislation constraining the IRS's ability to retain and recruit highly qualified employees is not needed and could be counterproductive to the Service's mission.'' So I am going to point out other things you haven't done. Mr. Crowley laid them out very, very well. This place, under your leadership, has been bankrupt in terms of addressing the critical needs of the budget, the problems in Flint, the problems faced by Puerto Rico, the problems faced by thousands of people because of Zika. So you come here and you say, well, the IRS isn't doing its job. You are not doing your job. Don't go after an agency for not being able to answer the telephone when you essentially are cutting the lines of resources. It is outrageous. It is outrageous, and I think the people will know. I say this to my constituents. When you call up and it takes hours, call up your local Member of Congress, especially if he or she a member of the majority here. Call them up. If they don't answer the phone, try email. And if there is no response, call one of us who are working to provide the adequate resources for the IRS to answer the phones, and we will try to find a way for you to communicate with your Member, if that person has failed to meet his responsibilities. The blame is on your doorstep. Don't try to shift it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here is the story. Here are the honest facts. Republicans have cut the IRS budget by close to $1 billion over the past 5 years. This bill is just another budget cut, further reducing the IRS' budget by as much as $500 million. The consequences of these budget cuts for taxpayers are significant, as you can see from this chart. What has happened since 2011 is the appropriations have gone down and waiting times have gone up. The average wait is shown by this blue line. The dollars are in the yellow. The only improvement was when we appropriated a couple hundred million dollars at the initiative of Democrats, and the waiting times went down as money went up. The Republicans who complain about poor IRS customer service, they have only to look in the mirror to see who is responsible. Here are the facts. Republican cuts to the IRS budget from 2010 to 2015 resulted in--and everyone listen to this--13,000 fewer full-time IRS employees; a significant number of taxpayer phone calls being dropped, as indicated by this chart; delays in much-needed upgrades to information technology and cybersecurity; and the lowest level of audits in a decade with less than 1 percent of taxpayers being audited last year. This is all despite the fact that the number of tax returns being filed increased by $9 million, or 7 percent, since 2010. This effort today is motivated entirely by politics instead of good policy. The IRS has had the authority to offset the cost of taxpayer services with user fees since 1995. The Republicans have never tried to tamper with that. This is the first time the Republicans have tried to prevent the IRS from using these moneys. We heard the Republicans argue that the IRS used some of this funding to implement the Affordable Care Act. True, as those are taxpayer services. Taxpayers are applying for help through the Affordable Care Act. It is the IRS' responsibility to implement that. The IRS is doing exactly what they should be doing: implementing a law passed by Congress, a law that has resulted in there being 20 million more Americans with healthcare coverage. This bill is, in essence, another effort--it might be--what?--No. 63, 64, 65--to undermine healthcare reform. That is really what this is all about, and the gentleman who presented the case made that case. The IRS' helping people get access to healthcare reform is a taxpayer service. The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy, which reads, if the President were presented with this bill, his senior advisers would recommend he veto it. The statement reads as follows: ``By further constraining IRS resources, H.R. 4885 would have detrimental effects on the IRS' ability to provide quality service to taxpayers, administer the Tax Code, and enforce tax laws.'' That is really what this is all about. The statement continues: ``The IRS needs more resources, not fewer, to deter tax cheats, serve honest taxpayers, and protect taxpayer data.'' The Republicans are using these IRS bills this week to attack the IRS and its employees as a distraction. They don't want hardworking Americans to know what they missed the deadline on: to come up with a budget. They are doing absolutely nothing to help the people of Flint or of Puerto Rico, who so desperately need our help. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' for the reasons outlined by this chart: for the need of more resources for customer services and to thwart a further effort by the Republicans to undermine the ACA, which has meant so much to millions and millions and millions of Americans from all walks of life. This should be resoundingly voted down, surely by us Democrats, who believe in customer service and who want the ACA implemented, not destroyed by the Republican Party of this House or of the Senate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Look, as happened yesterday, I expect the Republicans to try to bring up the issue relating to the IRS and how it handled 501(c)(4) applications. As I did yesterday, I just want to read an answer given by the inspector general on this issue. On May 17, 2013, I asked him as follows: ``Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications?'' Inspector George said: ``We did not, sir.'' Next, customer service. You have the gall to come forth here and complain about customer service when you cut the IRS' budget over 5 years by almost $900 million. That really takes gall. It is so inconsistent. As I said earlier, look in the mirror, and you will see who is responsible for those problems. I want to finish by saying: Slush fund? Implementing healthcare reform that has helped 20 million people, that is a slush fund? No. That is the implementation by the IRS of a necessary function that affects the lives and the health care of millions of Americans. So you are really bankrupt to come forth here and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is really a couple of sad days for this institution. Here we are filling in time with bills that are going nowhere and are deeply mistaken. No action on the budget, no action on the tragedy in Flint, no action on the needs of Puerto Rico, no action on Zika--essentially, the Republicans are about no action. So instead, they bring up this series of bills, and now, H.R. 1206. Let's look at it carefully. What this bill says is that the IRS cannot hire a single person until the Secretary of the Treasury issues a written certification that not a single employee in the entire agency has a serious tax debt. So when an employee quits or is terminated, that position could not be filled until an examination was completed of the tax status of every one of the 80,000 IRS employees. Realistically, to certify that no single employee has a significant tax debt, the IRS would need to immediately and continuously terminate any employee with a Federal tax lien. The IRS already has the authority to terminate an employee for delinquent taxes. This was established in 1998 in section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. The White House's Statement of Administration Policy says that the bill is ``unworkable in operation, as `seriously delinquent' debts could be as low as $1 and tax liens are recorded on a case-by-case basis.'' This bill is yet another politically motivated attack on the IRS and its 80,000 employees, who have one of the lowest rates of tax delinquency in the Federal Government at around 1 percent. I wish you would just look at the chart and see where the IRS is compared to the Congress. If you are really worried, ladies and gentlemen, about tax delinquency, we would need to look no further than here in the House, where tax delinquency among employees is more than 5 percent. The administration opposes this bill, stating further: ``These bills would impose unnecessary constraints on the Internal Revenue Service's operations without improving the agency's ability to administer the Tax Code and serve taxpayers.'' As I said at the beginning, there is a lot of work that should be undertaken in this House. Instead, this is essentially an empty Chamber with empty legislation. These bills are nothing more than a distraction to cover up the basic failure of the Republican majority to bring on legislation that would truly meet the needs of the American people. I urge that we oppose this bill. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a most distinguished member of our committee, control the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is ``bashing the IRS and its 80,000 employees'' week, but the two bills here today are very minor additions. Tomorrow and Thursday are the real problem proposals and the real culprits. They are the ones that really curtail the ability of the IRS to provide adequate service. Let me say just a few words about this bill. It urges the IRS to make available printed copies of IRS Publication 17, as has been said--the tax guide for individuals--free of charge to taxpayers. According to the IRS, printing and shipping copies of this publication cost them more than $500,000 last year. Will the Republicans fund this important service for taxpayers? No. Better yet, will they increase funding for customer services broadly, like answering taxpayer phone calls or investing in cybersecurity to prevent fraud? No. Instead, Republicans have cut the IRS' budget by close to $1 billion since 2010. As a consequence of those cuts, the state of the IRS' customer service today is inexcusable. If Republicans want the IRS to improve the services they provide to taxpayers, they need to provide adequate funding for the IRS. They need to increase it instead of cutting it as they have in previous years. This bill is also a distraction from the Republicans' inability to act on what really matters: the budget bill, the Flint bill--in terms of responding to the crisis there--and the Puerto Rico legislation. In part because this is, simply, a sense of Congress, it is, more or less, innocuous except in its saying to the IRS: Pay yourselves--the IRS--for the printing and the shipping--$500,000 it cost last year-- while, at the same time, the Republicans say: We are not going to provide the funding necessary for customer services. There is that total inconsistency. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I have listened. Here is the problem. Under your rule, the IRS has been receiving less money than it needs--$900 million less than in 2011. You come here, and you complain--when you are really the source of the complaints, in large measure--of the people who can't access the booklet or who can't get through on the telephone. You are the cause of so much of this difficulty, and you come here and complain. You need to put the money behind your complaints. Do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I respect the gentleman from Michigan, my colleague, who talks about it becoming more difficult. The reason it is more difficult to reach the IRS on the phone or to, perhaps, get the forms is due to the failure of the Congress, under the Republican majority, to provide adequate resources for customer service. That is the long and short of this. When we had a chance, we did add several hundred million dollars to the IRS that one year, and service improved; but now it is relapsing again because the Republican majority here simply will not provide adequate resources to the government agency that is supposed to work with our taxpayers. Also, the IRS is supposed to do some work in auditing tax returns. Because of the lack of resources, now fewer than 1 percent of taxpayers have any auditing of what they present to the IRS. I understand the concerns. What I do not understand is the realization that you are the source, in large measure, of these concerns. Tomorrow, we will be debating bills that have a much greater impact in terms of the IRS and its employees. This is relatively innocuous, in part, because it is only a sense of Congress and because it is unlikely to pass the Senate. Even if it did, it would be nothing more than an expression of the sense. What we really need are dollars and cents given to the IRS employees so that they can do the work they want to do so that the 50, 60, or whatever percent of the calls that come in never get through to those people who would like to respond to the people who are calling them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what is being prohibited here is already prohibited. It is prohibited in the law. It is prohibited by law that we passed in 1998. It says that there shall not be action as to any taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the IRS in violation of any right under the Constitution of the United States. So maybe this bill is an effort to bring back the long discussion we had about the IRS procedures. I don't think this is the time to relitigate it. I was there and you weren't, if I might say so. I thought maybe you would bring it up; so, I did go back to what happened.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will do that. I decided to go back to 2013 to the hearing of Ways and Means. After the inspector general gave his report--this is May 17, 2013--this is what I asked the inspector general: Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax-exemption applications? And the inspector said: We did not, sir. Look, we could spend hours talking about what has happened to the rules regarding 501(c)(4)'s in this country. We could go back and discuss the abuse of the 501(c)(4) provisions. We could go back and look at how much political money is being poured into this process by 501(c)(4)'s. We could go back and discuss what was the original language in the 501(c)(4) legislation that no political money could be used. Instead, it was interpreted decades ago that it relates to the majority must not be. So what has happened is that 501(c)(4)'s--by the way, most of them are rightwing organizations, most of them. Most of the money has come from rightwing organizations using the mask of 501(c)(4)'s to essentially, I think, pollute the democratic processes in this country. We shouldn't really be doing that. You raised it; so, I am responding. What this bill does is simply say that the constitutional rights should essentially prevail, and I fully agree. It is already in the 1998 legislation. So let's move on. Let's not use vehicles for political purposes. Look, we have so much more we could be doing today in terms of tax legislation. We have legislation relating to inversions. A number of us have introduced it. We complain that the executive uses too much power. They have used their power relating to inversions up to, I think, a legitimate point and have said to us in the Congress that we need to go further--the Congress does--to address the problem of inversions in this country. Essentially, we do nothing. We do nothing about this. There was talk earlier today about tax reform. We have heard this talking endlessly, and there is no product. There is no product whatsoever. So this bill simply restates what is already in the 1998 law which we completely, completely embrace. So I suggest we just get on with our business and try to do real business. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I thought maybe this bill was an excuse to try to relitigate this issue. I was among the first who suggested that Lois Lerner be relieved of her duties. I did so because of, I thought, the incompetent way it was handled, but not because there was any evidence of political motivation. Again, I want to go back to the question I asked the inspector general in 2013: ``Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax-exemption applications?'' Mr. George said: ``We did not, sir.'' So what has happened here is essentially getting up and reading a one-sided, often erroneous text, often conclusions that are not at all based on fact. We really should not be relitigating this today. We should be acting on tax legislation, on the budget, and other necessary issues that face the people of this country. I hope no one thinks that the passage of this bill will in any way imply on the part of any of us who have been involved with this on the Democratic side that there is any substance to the attack that has been launched here on the IRS and conclusions that have been reached that are not founded on fact. It is kind of sad. The 1998 law says no IRS employee may violate the constitutional rights of a taxpayer. That is absolutely clear. It is absolutely clear. So with this, I want to express my regret that this bill is being used as a vehicle for strictly political purposes. Let's abide by the Constitution and the 1998 law. Let's also abide by the responsibilities of this Congress, and that is to act on critical legislation and not use a bill as a vehicle to try to go over once and once again a case where there is deep difference of opinion and often deep misstatement of facts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I condemn the verdict and 22-year sentence issued today against Nadiya Savchenko by Russian authorities. The verdict shows disregard for the rule of law and is completely unjust. I once again call on Russian authorities to release her immediately. Throughout Savchenko's detention and trial, I have been deeply troubled by the serious violations in due process. Since her capture and imprisonment in July 2014 on trumped-up charges, her trial and hearing dates were repeatedly delayed, and her trial venue were moved to a remote region in Russia, difficult for observers to reach. Savchenko also endured interrogations, solitary confinement, and forced psychiatric evaluations. Since her capture, Savchenko has come to represent the spirit of an independent Ukraine, free from interference and eager to embrace the will of its own people. I join the people of Ukraine in expressing my deep concern for her well being, and in protesting her verdict and sentence. I continue to call on Russian authorities to release Nadiya Savchenko immediately.