Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions - Internal Revenue Service
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. ISAKSON):
S. 2282. A bill to prohibit the provision of performance awards to employees of the Internal Revenue Service who owe back taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this is a speech--these are some remarks--that I really should not have to make, but late this afternoon, I rise to discuss more amazing actions from our Nation's tax collector. This is, unfortunately, an agency that is fast becoming the gang that cannot shoot straight--the folks who brought us the partisan suppression of free speech, who piled onto that with proposed rules to shut down political action by groups with which they disagree or do not favor, and the same team that shares confidential taxpayer information with their allies outside of government. Obviously, I am talking about the Internal Revenue Service.
Here is a great deal: Break the law you are required to enforce and get a cash bonus and free time off.
What on Earth is this all about?
Well, last week, the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report, which I have here, on the Internal Revenue Service bonuses that were awarded to
personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy.
This is a lot like hiring someone to work for you, and then they steel money from you or acted in ways that are very inappropriate. Would you give them a bonus? I do not think most businesspeople would do that. According to the inspector general, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations on their records, with about half of that amount going to people who had violated the Tax Code.
Other personnel at the IRS received cash bonuses or other awards despite being cited for--listen to this--drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing government credit cards. Still they got bonuses--up to $3 million.
In fact, the report indicates that close to 70 percent of IRS personnel receive some sort of performance award--70 percent of the IRS. That is rather remarkable when you think about the sorts of problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from that particular agency.
This is flatly outrageous--if not appalling or atrocious--and cannot be tolerated. It also makes me wonder what you have to do to be disqualified from an award.
More disturbing, these awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines. Let me repeat that. These awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines.
Indeed, the IG report makes it clear that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the main union for IRS employees, these awards are appropriate and cannot be taken away because of such violations.
The distribution of these awards at a time when the IRS is under scrutiny for its actions concerning the political activity of conservative groups, when its performance of basic taxpayer service functions has drastically worsened, and when it is calling for additional funding, calls into question the agency's commitment to fair enforcement of our tax laws.
The IG report recognized that these awards--while not technically prohibited--appear to be in conflict with the IRS's charge of ``ensuring integrity of the system of tax administration.'' Well, no kidding. Thank goodness for the inspector general.
That is what we call an understatement--maybe the understatement of the year.
This is another fox in the henhouse story. Not only is the fox in the henhouse, but he is now being rewarded for eating the chickens.
These performance awards are just plain wrong and should not go to anyone who breaks the law, particularly the laws which the agency enforces.
These bonus awards weaken public confidence in the Nation's tax enforcement agency and are a sign that the agency has indeed run off the rails.
The inspector general report recommended that the IRS create a new policy to take disciplinary actions into account when awarding bonuses.
It seems to me we need to do more than set up a new policy or guideline. We need something more concrete and more immediate. That is why today I am joining with my friends--Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Rubio, Toomey, Thune, Johanns, Isakson, and Leader McConnell--to introduce the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act--a bill that really should be unnecessary. I thank my colleagues for joining me and, more especially, Senator Enzi, who has done a great deal of work on this and helped expose this from the first.
Our bill is pretty simple. It will prohibit the IRS from providing any performance award to any IRS employee who owes an outstanding Federal tax debt for failing to pay their taxes.
Nobody likes to be audited. Nobody likes to get that phone call from the IRS. Nobody likes to see the taxman at the door. And then if the taxman says: I am sorry, you owe X for a violation of Y, and you find out this individual got a performance bonus even though he or she fails to meet the tax obligations they face, that is rather incredible.
Given what we know about recent IRS actions--and the growing discontent with the agency I hear from Kansans every day--continuing to award personnel bonuses to employees who have outstanding tax liabilities or have violated the tax laws is beyond comprehension and outrageous and should be stopped.
This is not a partisan issue. It is just plain common sense. The IRS should not be in the business of awarding bonuses to its agents who are unable or unwilling to abide by the tax laws they are directed to uphold--simple as that.
So I call upon all my colleagues to support the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act and will ask for its immediate consideration.
In closing, I would like to point out this issue has been well-documented in a 26-page report by the inspector general. I thank the inspector general for the work he has done. Right on the first page it says: ``The Awards Program Complied With Federal Regulations, but Some Employees With Tax and Conduct Issues Received Awards.'' Most IRS employees complied with Federal regulations, but some employees with tax and conduct issues still received awards. That is an oxymoron.
Then, if you skip to the back, there are some recommendations. The recommendation is for corrective action. This is what it says:
The IRS Human Capital Officer--Daniel Riordan is the IRS Human Capital Officer--will conduct a feasibility study. But they do not have to take action right away. They just want to discuss the feasibility of a study--by June 30 of this year--just a couple months away--for the implementation of a policy requiring management to consider a policy change.
It does not say just to do it; it says just consider whether conduct issues resulting in disciplinary actions should be made part of the performance evaluation, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal government, prior to awarding performance and discretionary awards.
Daniel Riordan has received marching orders from the Inspector General to conduct a feasibility study by June 30, to determine whether the IRS should even consider whether disciplinary actions, including the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal Government, should be part of the evaluation as to whether an employee should be eligible for a performance award.
We really do not need this legislation. We have introduced it to force action. The inspector general says: Let's have action. On 26 pages, he says: Let's have action.
So to Daniel Riordan, I have the following advice--before we get 60 people on this and pass a bill, why don't you just go ahead and do it. Do not conduct a feasibility study. We have all the evidence right here. If you would just change the current policy, it would remove yet another problem, another unfortunate asterisk when we think of the IRS.
I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation and again ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source