Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive IRS Requests Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2531) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I draw your attention to H.R. 2531, the Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive IRS Requests Act. Let me give you a quick summary, Mr. Speaker, of what the bill does. Let me give you an example that we heard in the Ways and Means Committee that prompted this. And I look forward to hearing from my colleague, Mr. Davis.

The legislation establishes a new procedure for the IRS to follow when asking questions regarding three areas: religious, political, and social beliefs. And the following is the new procedure: the IRS can't ask those questions. They can't ask about religious, political, or social beliefs. And there are two exceptions. One is a question or set of questions that is approved by Congress by an enacted law; or, if the IRS Commissioner deems questions are important to aid in tax administration and submits a report to Congress, which must include the following and be approved by a joint resolution of Congress:

State the specific questions that were authorized;

Describe the class of taxpayers who will be asked the questions;

Describe the circumstances surrounding the taxpayers being asked those questions.

So where is this coming from? What is this all about?

We heard testimony from six witnesses, Mr. Speaker, who came before the Ways and Means Committee as the IRS scandal was breaking. These six witnesses in particular I found to be compelling. I found them to be compelling for two reasons:

Number one, they didn't give up on their country. When they were being targeted by the Federal Government, these witnesses kept faith and kept hope with the America that they knew existed, and they were not willing to feel overwhelmed even though the events were actually fairly overwhelming, being targeted by your Federal Government to say you can and cannot participate in the public square. That is one reason I admire them.

The second reason, Mr. Speaker, was this. They came to Washington to do something about it. They engaged Congress. They engaged in the full committee. They gave compelling testimony. The testimony moved us. It moved me to introduce this bill.

Here was the single, without question, most compelling witness who spoke that day, in my view. She represented a right-to-life group in Iowa. She told the story of being asked by the Internal Revenue Service in written interrogatories--in other words, pieces of paper with questions written down that come from the Internal Revenue Service to their little group--and the inquiry was, Tell us about your prayers. Tell us about your prayer meetings. What goes on at those?

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that our freedom to worship is our first freedom, and our freedom to worship is central to who we are.

The long, powerful arm of the Federal Government is coming in and grabbing a little right-to-life group by the neck and shaking them around, saying, Write down what happens in your prayer meetings and write it down and sign your name, under penalty of perjury. That is exactly what those questions did.

I was sobered by that. That was chastening testimony to hear that this agency, this agency of delegated authority from the people's House, has now used that and, I would argue, misused that. Why in the world does the Internal Revenue Service need to know about the prayer meetings of a pro-life group in Iowa? That is a shameful abuse and a shameful scandal that they even asked those questions.

But what does it tell you?

It tells you that there was a way of thinking, a culture, I would argue, at the Internal Revenue Service that said, We are empowered to do these things.

Well, if that is what they think, let's correct that, shall we, Mr. Speaker? Let's say that they can't ask those questions. The questions about religion, your political beliefs, and about what your social beliefs are have nothing to do with what the Internal Revenue Service should be doing as it relates to tax administration.

So these are very clear limitations. There are a couple of exceptions. But it is meant clearly to put the IRS back where they belong on the tax administration side and not deciding who gets to participate in the public square of debate and who doesn't.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague said enough is enough. I guess enough is enough if you are one of the ones that wasn't impacted. But if you were impacted by the IRS targeting, it had a jarring effect on you.

And if we are going to move forward, if we are going to have the Internal Revenue Service have the respect that we need it to have, which it doesn't have right now, there is an overwhelming level of concern and consternation about how the IRS handled these things in the past and how they conducted themselves.

The fact that the Internal Revenue Service has not been forthcoming pursuant to Chairman Camp's request for information is not in dispute. There is nobody here that is arguing the IRS has been completely forthcoming and given the chairman all the information he needs or that he has requested. No. They haven't been forthcoming, and that continues to be a real problem.

I think it is important for us to recognize that the TIGTA report was an audit. It was not an investigation. An investigation is ongoing. So this notion that there is no knowledge or there is no indication of any sort of political influence, I think that there is a great deal of knowledge of political influence that was peddled and used here, and I think the facts bear it out.

The scope of the audit that the gentleman was referring to was to focus on conservative targeting. The IG struck within the parameters of the audit. Far more conservative groups faced IRS scrutiny, they faced more questions, and were approved at a lower rate than progressive groups were.

Numbers are very straightforward: 104 conservative groups experienced an average of 15 additional questions, only 46 percent of conservative applicants were approved, and 56 percent of groups are either waiting for a determination or have withdrawn in frustration.

Now, that is messed up. If you are withdrawing because you can't get a straight answer, you are just feeling overwhelmed, who wins then?

The Internal Revenue Service wins, and the taxpayer that wants to participate in the public debate loses.

Compare that to seven progressive groups that were asked an average of just five additional questions.

You know what, Mr. Speaker?

Every one of those progressive groups was approved--100 percent of them were approved.

We know now that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that are already operating as 501(c)(4)s, and at Washington, D.C.'s direction, not Cincinnati's initiative, at Washington, D.C.'s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, monitoring of the groups' activities, Web sites, and any other publicly available information.

Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning, and of the groups that the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent of those were conservative-leaning. So, this idea that this was, well, everybody is treated the same way, the facts don't bear that out, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to draw attention to one particular group, a constituency that I represent, the West Suburban Patriots of DuPage County. They submitted their application for 501(c)(4) status in May of 2011. They received a letter from the IRS acknowledging their application. Nearly 4 months later they were told their application was ``in the pile.''

Over a year later, June of 2012, the West Suburban Patriots received a letter indicating that they had to answer a series of questions in an incredibly short timeframe. The questions were political, and demonstrated that the IRS scoured their Web site by demanding information that would be on their Members Only web page.

Isn't that interesting?

In July of 2012 they received a letter granting their 501(c)(4) status.

Now, the West Suburban Patriots name and tax ID number were found on a list of ``political advocacy cases'' that the Exempt Organizations Office in D.C. made to track Tea Party cases, and USA Today received the confidential political advocacy list and made it public.

Here is the point: this is not what the Internal Revenue Service should be doing. The Internal Revenue Service should be making proper inquiries, not asking about prayer meetings, not being passive aggressive, choosing winners and losers in the public square.

This is an important piece of legislation. It reclaims authority that was once delegated and has been abused, and now needs to be reclaimed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Davis for engaging in this debate and this discussion, and I think he is right. We are at a fork in the road. I would describe the fork in the road as the responsibility that we have in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to take this challenge, and that is to do everything that we can, in light of this information that has come to our attention, to make sure that the Internal Revenue Service is being limited, is not allowed to ask questions regarding religion or social questions or political questions, and that we can enjoy a day in the future when they enjoy our respect. With that, I urge passage the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1814) to amend section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an additional religious exemption from the individual health coverage mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just yesterday, a Washington newspaper headline read: ``Worst Congress Ever.''

The thrust of the article was an indictment against Washington partisanship for its failure to move significant legislation on behalf of the American people. Now, to some degree, I suppose we have all felt at times that Congress just isn't making any laws. Of course, there are times, however, when Congress must make no law if we are to honor the oath we have sworn, which is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Today, we have the opportunity to work together, across the aisle, to reaffirm this founding principle of our democracy. Together, we will reinforce the constitutional protection for sincere believers of all faiths against the unnecessary entanglement of government with their private religious expression. H.R. 1814 slightly expands the religious conscience exemption of the Affordable Care Act to include individuals with ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' among those eligible for an exemption from the individual mandate penalty.

In order to qualify for the exemption under the EACH Act, an individual must affirm on an annual tax return that he or she cannot purchase coverage due to a sincerely held religious belief. This term, as defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as widely recognized by

the courts, is designed to protect various types of religious believers, not just those who belong to a traditional, organized religion.

Today's bill must become law. Among the many problems with the Affordable Care Act, the current conscience exemption only protects the religious exemptions of a few select faiths. Now, I am fully aware that not every organization purporting to defend religious liberty is in favor of today's measure. I am, nevertheless, thankful that my good friend from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Keating, joined me in this effort. His home State of Massachusetts incorporated a similar religious liberty exemption in their State law, and it seems to be working out just fine. Since the law passed, only 6,500 Bay Staters have claimed the conscience exemption.

This fact serves to reinforce the very principle of religious liberty we affirm today. The Constitution does not only protect the religious practices and beliefs of majority faith traditions, but, rather, the First Amendment protects even the smallest faith group and even the single individual against laws that infringe upon their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Yet H.R. 1814 isn't only about constitutional jurisprudence and legislative correctness. It is about real people in my district and in yours who feel that their free exercise of religion is encumbered under the current law. One of them is a constituent of mine named Andrew, who lives in Chillicothe, Illinois. Andrew is a sincere believer whose religious commitment leads him to pursue only nonmedical health care options. According to Andrew, under the current law, he will be required to pay a fine once the individual mandate penalty kicks in. Regrettably, Andrew's religious beliefs were not considered when the present conscience exemption was enacted.

Today, the EACH Act gives individuals like Andrew the ability to practice his religious beliefs without coercive government fining him for coverage he does not intend to use nor can he use and remain true to his most sincere religious beliefs. We recognize, however, that the immense unpopularity of ObamaCare among many Americans might entice otherwise law-abiding citizens to claim an exemption under the EACH Act in order to escape the law's penalty. In order to ensure that individuals do not game the system, this bill includes a strong provision that revokes the exemption and requires the individual to pay a stiff penalty if he or she seeks medical treatment at any point during that year.

H.R. 1814 walks that fine line between protecting the First Amendment for every American and safeguarding taxpayers against potential fraud. Congress has long sought to uphold both of these commitments, and, today, this bill affords us a bipartisan opportunity to do it once again. I urge my colleagues to support this important fix to the Affordable Care Act and to pass H.R. 1814.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments from California. I would just remind the gentleman that this is a near carbon copy of language that was implemented in the State of Massachusetts. It has had a very minimal effect, and it has impacted and has helped a very small number of people. It is why this bill has received such bipartisan support and is on the suspension calendar here tonight.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and neighbor from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just remind my good friend from Michigan that had regular order been used when ObamaCare was passed, perhaps we would not be attempting to try and fix it now that it is law.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare in a 5-4 ruling 2 years ago this summer. The Justices did so by affirming that Congress, contrary to the repeated assurance by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, had effectively created a tax that falls under the enumerated powers of article I of the Constitution, and, like a tax, compliance is mandatory, and enforcement is the job of the Internal Revenue Service.

Since the summer of 2012, we have learned some things about the IRS that raise concerns about the agency's ability to do its job fairly. Likewise, we have watched the Obama administration usurp congressional authority and refuse to enforce the law that bears the President's name.

Among the many ``executive fixes'' that seem to flow from the administration with increasing frequency, none have touched upon one of the most serious problems with ObamaCare, namely, current law will either force millions of Americans to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs or punish them for exercising those beliefs.

We are not likely to agree today--or any day--on the underlying law. ObamaCare is as controversial now--and perhaps even more so--than when it was passed, but we can agree on this:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of

religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Less than a mile from this Chamber, on the bank of the tidal basin, are inscribed in marble these words:

Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to

influence it by temporal

punishments or burdens are a departure from the plan of the

Holy author of our religion. No man shall suffer on account

of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be

free to possess and maintain their opinions in matters of

religion.

Those words, written by Thomas Jefferson, the first Democrat to be called ``Mr. President,'' capture the very essence of today's bill. It is our duty--even our oath that we take before God--to protect the religious freedoms of every American. ObamaCare does not do that. Today's bipartisan measure is a small but necessary step if Congress is to honor the great tradition of religious liberty enshrined in our founding documents and extended to succeeding generations of Americans by law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 1814, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I respect very much the specific impetus for this bill. Unfortunately, though, there have been no hearings on this legislation, and it was not marked up in committee.

I would like to provide information on current law, on the scope of this legislation, and its potential consequences on our health care system.

This is why I do not support this bill in its present form.

First, it is important to note that the Affordable Care Act contains a religious exemption incorporating one that has been in the Internal Revenue code since 1965. This provision permits an exemption to members of religion that join together to provide mutual aid as a community-- for example, the Amish and Mennonite faiths--or participate in a health care sharing ministry, which is akin to insurance. These groups do not participate in government-funded social services, including Medicare or Social Security. This is a longstanding, well-defined, easy to implement exemption, and it was carried over to the ACA.

The ACA's minimum essential coverage requirement was challenged in Federal court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court rejected the challenge, concluding that ACA did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise, despite claims that the plaintiffs ``believe in trusting in God to protect them from illness or injury'' and did not ``want to be forced to buy health insurance coverage.''

Second, a requirement to purchase minimum health insurance is not a burden on one's exercise of their religious beliefs in the medical treatment they seek. The ACA does not preclude coverage for spiritual healing or prayer treatments. Indeed, the Church of Christ, Scientist explains on their Web site that under current law:

Various U.S. Federal, State, and private health insurance

plans provide for the reimbursement of Christian Science

nursing care and practitioner treatment.

Christian Scientists participate in Medicare, and Medicare covers some Christian Science services.

It is the breadth of the language in the bill and the potential unintended consequences implementing it on a national basis that concerns me.

The language provides an exemption if a person files a sworn statement to the IRS that their ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' would cause them to object to the ``medical health care'' that would be covered under ACA's minimum essential health care requirement.

There is no indication as to how the IRS could implement this provision and, as a result, the exemption could essentially be available to anyone opposed to the ACA. While the bill states that individuals receiving ``voluntary'' medical care would lose their exemption, the IRS has no way to monitor individuals' use of voluntary medical care and to enforce this provision.

Under the legislation, individuals receiving ``involuntary'' care-- such as emergency care--would be allowed to remain exempt from the coverage requirement, passing the cost of such care on to hospitals and other taxpayers.

Because the bill does not define the ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' an individual would need to cite to avoid purchasing coverage, the IRS would be forced to determine which Americans' beliefs met the standard. Yet just 2 weeks ago, the House considered and passed H.R. 2531, the Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive IRS Requests Act, that specifically prevented the IRS from asking taxpayers about their religious, political, or social beliefs.

I regret that normal order has not been followed on H.R. 1814 so that these concerns could be surfaced and further information on the broad and problematic consequences of H.R. 1814 considered.

For example, today, the American Academy of Pediatrics just expressed their concerns about the impact of H.R. 1814 on children. The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the legislation, and the CBO just indicated today that the bill would increase the deficit by $1.5 billion over 10 years and increase the uninsured by about 500,000 each year.

Current religious exemptions in the Tax Code are circumscribed and well-defined. This bill would create a broad and difficult to determine exemption in the individual responsibility requirement and force the IRS to take on an inappropriate role. Congress should take a more careful approach to this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Coming from the same and neighboring communities and State as my colleague, we agree on many things. We all agree that the Internal Revenue Service should not ask about your religious, political, or social beliefs in determining your taxpayer status. That is different, however, from asking you about your political activities, which was at the root of the Internal Revenue Service's mismanagement of the 501(c)(4) applications.

The IRS did the right thing in trying to group together applications by activity, but they were wrong in using party names and labels from both Democrats and Republicans in their organizational process.

The division that was the subject of the May 2013 TIGTA report was grossly mismanaged in that it allowed these applications to be selected by name and then allowed them to sit for an inordinate length of time. Swift corrective action was taken to remove the ineffective management, and the subsequent IRS leadership has put the agency on the right path to restoring the public trust.

There has never been any evidence of political motivation or influence from anyone either inside or outside the IRS. Treasury's inspector general repeatedly testified that he found no evidence of political motivation in the selection of processing of tax exemption applications that were the subject of his report. Indeed, an extensive review of 5,500 employee emails by the TIGTA Office of Investigations concluded that there was no political motivation in trying to group these applications.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, what we saw was a small division of a very large agency that struggled to determine how to handle tax- exempt applications from politically motivated groups. Consequently, they allowed those applications to sit for an inordinate amount of time while it tried to determine what criteria to use to judge who determined tax-exempt status.

We also had a flawed TIGTA report that deliberately removed any reference to Progressive and Democratic groups from the criteria the IRS actually used to group applications together and consequently presented a one-sided and partisan conclusion about this issue to Congress.

What we do not have is any evidence of political motivation in the processing of tax exemption applications or any evidence of outside influence in the selection or processing of tax exemption applications.

Mr. Speaker, I think enough is enough. It is time for us to move on to processing issues like extending long-term unemployment insurance benefits, raising the minimum wage, and fixing our immigration laws. Let us give the American people some confidence that their Congress can debate and pass bills on these important issues.

Yes, there was activity that took place which is unacceptable. The individuals have been removed from those positions. Let us take the Internal Revenue Service and move it on to higher heights, giving the American people that each and every citizen is treated fairly, with respect, and with the dignity that all of us deserve as citizens of this great Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, I think with the IRS, we are, like, approaching a fork in the middle of the road and we have choices that we can make.

We now have new leadership. The agency has been sanitized. The individuals with culpability are no longer there. They no longer play in any leadership roles at all.

The new Commissioner has given us every assurance, and he comes to the IRS with an impeccable record from both public and private activity, and has given every assurance that can be given that he is going to take that road that leads to the highest level of integrity, that we can bank on the Internal Revenue Service being as fair as fair can be.

I like to believe that he means what he says, and that he says what he means. So I am confident that we have a new IRS, and we will see it function with a new light, a new spirit, and a new direction.

So I thank my colleague. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this legislation carries important personal significance for some of our colleagues, and I respect that, but I want to express some real concerns about the bill because I feel it is overly broad. It could seriously undermine the Affordable Care Act and would establish a bad precedent for our tax laws.

The bill states that individuals would not be required to obtain health insurance coverage if their ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' cause them to object to treatments that would be covered. The bill does not narrowly define ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' as those of Christian Scientists or other groups who rely on a religious method of healing. As a result, the bill would force the IRS to either accept virtually all attestations of exemption or to determine which Americans' religious beliefs meet that standard. This is impossibly difficult to enforce, and, frankly, it is not a role we want the IRS to take on.

If the IRS chose to define ``sincerely held religious beliefs'' broadly, H.R. 1814 could allow, essentially, anyone opposed to the Affordable Care Act to opt out of coverage. That would lead to an increase in the number of uninsured Americans, and it would shift costs on to other taxpayers. Even if we assume the IRS could set a standard, there are significant problems with the legislation.

The bill claims that individuals receiving ``voluntary'' medical care would lose their exemptions, but the IRS has no way to monitor individuals' use of voluntary medical care, making this totally unenforceable. Furthermore, individuals receiving ``involuntary'' care, such as expensive emergency care, would be allowed to remain exempt from the coverage requirement, passing the costs of their care on to hospitals and other taxpayers.

I understand this is a sensitive issue. If religious groups that receive Medicare and Social Security benefits do not want to obtain health insurance, we need to examine that issue carefully. This bill should have been the subject of hearings. It should have been marked up in committee. Unfortunately, it was not.

The Affordable Care Act is about moving our Nation towards universal health insurance coverage. That is the right thing for the health of our Nation. So I believe we need to tread very carefully when opening up new loopholes or exemptions, and we must be very cautious before assigning such sensitive duties to the IRS.

Because of these concerns, I cannot support this legislation at the present time and in its present form. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will take a careful look at it and make substantial changes before considering it further.