imagine, i would hope that is not how people think. beenis is something i have interested in. to the best of my knowledge, i peer-reviewedf a academic study that finds such an effect. there are reasons for this. knowu are an employer, you the wage you are paying that worker. know, is necessarily there a cohabitant in the house who has a well-paying job? you don't know which of your employees are receiving snap and which are not. no employer could run in operation where they pay two aployees doing the same job different weight level because one is getting snap and one is

not. that way.ot work the only evidence i am aware of, two studies ior have found, because of the earned income tax credit, we are inducing more people to enter the labor market. by increasing the supply of workers, it may have some modest moderating effects on wages. the eitcll effect on on wages is a positive. this is one of the reasons the complemente and eitc each other. i have never seen any evidence, diane is a green, that the snap

eitc it doeske the not have particular effects on the supply of labor. here is an interesting question. in the being ignored presidential election and if so, why? secretary vilsack: i don't think it is being ignored. i think there has been a good deal of conversation about poverty, income inequality. watchedrom iowa, i have the presidential campaign beg in. there was a lot of conversation about economic opportunity, support for programs that would provide people a chance to make

it. i'm not sure it is being ignored by the candidate. it may very well be not something the media is focused on. because they are more interested in the theatrics of the campaign. i guess that is a polite way of referring to what is going on. it may be doesn't sell as much advertising as some of the stuff that is being ordered. we shouldi think demand more from our presidential campaigns. candidates but from the campaigns and coverage of campaigns. there are a lot of issues that are not being discussed as they ought to be or in a serious manner. like the conversation we are having today. i think of rural poverty. are a couple of candidates

who have detailed plans about rural poverty but there has been a conversation about it. it frankly is a fairly porton topic that needs to be discussed. wouldn't surprise me if we see more focus on snap in the general election. we are now in the primary stage. it is not as though there is a burning issue about snap that divides donald trump and ted cruz. andlarly, hillary clinton bernie sanders. it could be when we get to the general election, there are bigger differences. secretary vilsack: they will be references, as they were in 2012, to do it in a way that is not informative. it is an effort to demonize not just the snap the fisheries but snapandidates --

beneficiaries but the candidates. there should be pushed back if that happens by not just the candidate that those who understand what this program is and what it is not. we should not let anyone suggest rapid fraud,ple, waste, and abuse. we should not allow people to suggest everyone is gaining a system. we want everyone to understand there are senior citizens, working poor, and the children. and ask the question, which one of these groups do not want to help? so we put the candidate suggesting there is a problem saying, i don't want seniors to be helped. if we areof debate, going to have that kind of conversation, that is a question we should compel an answer to. >> next question.

i'm going to us the question and give context. illuminatingidered considered eliminating the five-year residency requirement for immigrants to receive it? when the 1996 welfare law came it had reallys, severe restrictions on legal, we are not talking about undocumented immigrants. we are talking about legal immigrants. legal immigrants receiving snap and other benefits. i remember when president clinton signed of the law, he singled out two areas that in his view went too far. one was the immigrant restrictions. the other were some of the staff cuts. -- snap cuts. with regard to the immigrant therictions, as i recall,

restrictions on legal immigrants were removed for all of the immigrants. for people who newly entered the there was a five-year restriction. i think it was eased for children. i think it is still there for adults. this is not something usa secretary have authority on. congress would have to change the law. are focus issack: on things we can control. a can encourage states to do better job of outreach. we can control encouraging opportunities for snap and toheries -- beneficiaries take their kids to a farmers market. we can control reducing error rates and fraud rates. we can control connecting states

with work opportunities. our focus is on things we can control. i don't know that we necessarily have been in the vanguard at this point of figuring out what the policy changes ought to be. as we begin preparing for the the farm bill, that is when conversation would be appropriate so the next secretary will be engaged in it. a the extent, i had conversation in the context of the 2014 farm bill. could linkthe fund people to employment. >> i remember back in 1996, i provisions immigrant were the most unsavory in the law.

i was glad they were substantially altered the not totally in 1997. in terms of the obama thenistration, obviously immigrant related issue the president has elevated is the executive order to bring 4.59 people out of the shadows. much as i would like to see the five-year restriction eased, i think the president got it right. the top priority is to bring people, they have been working and playing by the rules, to bring them out of the shadows. we are still waiting to see where the supreme court comes down. secretary vilsack: the next time any of you put a fork into a fruit or vegetable, understand it was likely touched at some point in time by immigrant hands. 70% are probably not in the country legally that they do

backbreaking work in order to provide us incredible diversity. into the grocery store, make sure you understand the diversity produce department, some was brought to you by folks who work 12-14 hour days without much protection because they are here trying to take your of their families and we have a broken immigration have thed woul do not courage at this point in time in the congress to fix it. [applause] abouthave been talking big issues. we just got into immigration. i wouldent can be made, agree with this argument, that the biggest issue of all in the future of the planet is i'm a change. -- is climate change. how would food and security be affected by, change if we do not address it?

i would say not something i really know about. secretary vilsack: the first thing we can do if we are truly interested in climate and food insecurity is to illuminate food waste. 30% of the food grown in this country and globally is wasted. in the u.s., it is a large waste thathe solid goes into our landfills. it is the biggest solid waste component and a producer of methane. if we were able to illuminate global food waste, we would have 850 millionto feed people who are food insecure. the second thing is to work with agriculture to make sure we are adapting and mitigating to the impacts of climate. there is no question it will impact and effect how much is grown and where it is grown.

if you are in a coastal area, it is a serious consequence. president obama to cuba for my second visit, i had a chance to visit with the ag minister.r -- we believe there is an opportunity for collaboration on agriculture in the caribbean. we are looking at every region of the country and caribbean to understand the impacts of climate change and what the vulnerabilities are. ofhave produced a series suggestions. are getting producers aware of steps they can take. we have linked this with the agricultural alliance. toking collaboratively figure out the best practices. there is an aggressive effort

here. we are sharing research. data so it is up easier to do research from the research we have done in the past. focus ona significant this and we will continue to. each one of us can start today by trying to avoid food waste. >> we are at the end of our our. -- our hour. you have just really seen the seriousness. the words that come to my mind are the quiet but very real tomion of tom bill sack -- vilsack. the people who are cynical about our political system, you have seen in illustration that our system can and it does produce leaders who really dedicate

themselves to making our country and our world a better place. we thank you, mr. secretary. both for being here for the hour and making the time. more broadly, for everything you are doing on these issues. i want to thank the hamilton project for putting this together and all of you for coming here this morning. thank you are. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the rnc rules committee met

for an hour today in hollywood, florida, and did not make how it to the rules for presidential nominee is chosen in a contested convention. we will have that at 8:00 p.m., followed by florida governor rick scott's remarks. the house has spent the last few days debating and approving bills dealing with the irs. one of the measures members passed would prevent the irs from rehiring employees who have already been fired for certain forms of misconduct. .iling thousand -- commit spirit here is the debate from the house floor. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, h.r. 3724, the ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work force act. with tax day just behind us, most americans have finished

their tax returns. they filled out form after form giving the i.r.s. some of the most sensitive information possible, including their social security numbers, their birth dates, wage data, and more. in 2014, the inspector general for the i.r.s. released a report that raised serious questions about whose hands this information falls into once it arrives at the i.r.s. more specifically, an audit of the agency's hiring practices found that the i.r.s. rehired hundreds of former employees the i.r.s. had previously fired because of conduct problems. we are not talking about small infractions. the i.r.s. rehired employees who had falsified documents. they failed to pay their own taxes. they access sensitive taxpayer information without permission. to think that someone could inappropriately access tax information, get fired for doing so, and then be rehired just a few months later is completely unacceptable. but it's happened and it's happened more than once. these stories border on the absurd, one employee had been absent for leave without --

without leave for a total of eight weeks' worth of work. as a result, that employee was fired as the words, do not rehire, were stamped on their personnel file. still, the i.r.s. rehired this person. i.r.s. leadership has failed to acknowledge its mistakes or change its processes. instead, they stuck their heads in the sand. according to the inspector general, the i.r.s.' response to the report believed its current process was good nufment i don't buy t if the i.r.s. leadership thinks their current processes are protecting taxpayers, they need a reality check. the ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work force act is a simple bipartisan fix to a serious problem. the bill does what the i.r.s. bureaucracy in washington won't. it stops the i.r.s. from rehiring former employees who had been fired for cause. my staff and i have met with numerous frontline i.r.s. employees from south dakota who are sincere and hardworking individuals. my bill is not named at them. this legislation is aimed at the i.r.s. bureaucracy in

washington and it's intended to address a very real problem they have refused to fix. there is no reason that i.r.s. leadership in washington shouldn't be held to the same standard to which it holds you, the taxpayers. with this legislation we can hold the i.r.s. accountable to us and to hiring practices that ensure a high quality work force for the agency. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> -- mr. crowley: we know that they face consumer challenges and needs to be more responsive to the american taxpayer, but this bill is not a serious attempt at oversight of the i.r.s. in fact, this -- with respect to making the i.r.s. more responsive to taxpayers, this bill is a move in the wrong direction, but the fact that republicans are moving in the wrong direction on tax policy

really shouldn't be a surprise to any of us. they are not only starving our entire government of resources that it needs to operate efficiently for the american public but they are deliberately standing in the y of actual productive policies. forget real tax reform that would bring positive benefits. they aren't doing anything that's broken in the system today. they refuse to crack down on large corporations that seek to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. simply by changing their mailing address from the united states to a low tax foreign country. we see the stories on tv all the time. corporations renouncing their american citizenship to not have to pay any, any u.s. taxes.

but congressional republicans have refused to take any action to stop these corporate tax dodgers and the resulting offshoring of american jobs. in fact, the republicans who run congress have protected these companies, not only through their refusal to act to stop these tax inversions but by also refusing to repeal the tax break that incentivizing u.s. companies to ship jobs overseas. yes, american companies can claim a tax break for firing american workers and moving their jobs overseas, and my republican colleagues are doing nothing about that. the real-world effect of the republicans' refusal to go after these corpations who invert themselves to avoid paying their share of taxes is a heavier tax burden on the rest of our honest constituents

who are playing by the rules. to address this problem, the treasury department recently issued new rules to stop large corporations from simply changing their post office box to avoid paying u.s. taxes. could my constituents imagine simply changing their post office box address to eliminate their federal taxes? of course not. because they can't. but somehow multinational companies who seem to have more rights than american citizens can. now, you would think the american congress would support the efforts of the american president to stop american companies from not paying the taxes here in america, but, mr. speaker, you would be wrong. the majority is threatening to stop the treasury from advancing these types of commonsense rules to make

multinational corporations pay their fair share of u.s. taxes just like everyone else. wouldn't time be better spent and served if my republican colleagues held hearings and pass bills to stop companies from removing their jobs and profits overseas? democrats stand ready to work with them to enact policies, commonsense policies to close the loopholes in our tax code that encourage companies to send their profits and their jobs overseas. unfortunately we'll have to wait for another day before the majority is seriously considering working together to make our tax system fairer for working people. but let me be clear, america will not wait any longer. they demand that we act to close these loopholes to ensure that american corporations

don't cheat the system to try to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here in the united states, to let the little guy have the greater burden in their absence. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, i'm proud to have a gentleman here to speak on behalf of my bill that's been a strong leader in bringing integrity to the i.r.s., so i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. we are at a crossroads with our tax system, our tax code is outdated, it's overly complicated and the i.r.s. has proven its -- in and of itself is in need of serious reform. here's an opportunity for us to work together. the opening remarks from my colleague across the aisle, i'm not sure if that's an attitude of cooperation but certainly

this is a bill we can work together on, i would hope. you know, our tax code was last updated in 1986, a generation ago. it is increasingly burdensome in this global 21st century economy. american taxpayers need a simpler code that they can easily comply with, and finally, they deserve an accountable and consistent i.r.s. which provides exceptional taxpayer customer service. it is long past time for the status quo to change on these problems. we need the tax reform. this is why i stand in support of my colleague's bill, the ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work force act, the legislation would prohibit the i.r.s. from rehiring any individual who was previously hired by the i.r.s. but fired by cause. this is unacceptable by an agency which requires the highest standard of tax compliance from taxpayers. the i.r.s. should apply the same rigorous standard inside

the agency itself. i wish we didn't need an act of congress such as this, but apparently we do. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. mrs. noem: the gentlelady reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: continue to reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, i have a friend and colleague here today who's fought daily for years for hardworking taxpayers across america and for his home district. i'm proud to yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i want to thank the gentlewoman from hanlin county, south dakota, very dear friend, not only of every member of congress but in particular a great representative of south dakota at a time when south dakota not only needs strong representation but a strong voice. i want to thank the young congresswoman for bringing this

legislation to the floor today. mr. speaker, today it's quite simple. the united states congress has a say in the matter about how our government is run and the conduct of the government. the internal revenue service has for quite some time been at odds i believe not only with their mission statement but also at odds with their duty to publicly serve, to provide information and to do the things that enable taxpayers who want to follow the law and need to follow the law to comply respectfully. the internal revenue service over the last few years has run afoul, i believe, of the american people because their commonsense obligations that they have have not been met. today, we are here on the floor with congresswoman noem to talk about h.r. 3794, that prohibits the commissioner of the i.r.s. from rehiring any employee who

was involuntarily -- that means forced out -- involuntarily separated from service for misconduct at the internal revenue service. the treasury inspector general for tax administration reported in february, 2015, that the i.r.s. had rehired those employees that had been fired from the service for misconduct . hundreds of former employees who were terminated for well-documented conduct or performance issues. n fact, the i.r.s. rehired 141 former employees who had substantial tax issues. that means they were not paying their own tax bills. well, mr. speaker, if we were going to hire a person in our office, we would attempt to gain information about that employee. yesterday, as we were talking about this on the rule, a fellow colleague said, well, what about your own employees?

do you make sure they pay their taxes? i said, that would be a good question. no, i don't ask that question, but i would not have any idea what the real answer was, the truth if an employee did not tell me the truth. the i.r.s. does have the answer and they know who is paying their taxes and they know why they fired an employee, mr. speaker, and we are here saying that the internal revenue service should not rehire these employees who were unfaithful. unfaithful to their job and unfaithful to the american taxpayer. 141 employees who substantially did not pay their taxes represents 60% of all terminated for misconduct. and i think i know why. because the internal revenue service at the highest levels allows this to go on, and then they rehire the employees who didn't even follow the law. mr. speaker, that's not just

misconduct, that is another level giving them an opportunity that a normal taxpayer would not have to get away with not paying their own taxes. other misconduct issues of rehiring employees include assessing taxpayer information improperly without authorization, falsification of official forms, unacceptable behavior and performance and abuse of i.r.s. while on public time. mr. speaker, congresswoman noem is doing the right thing and so is the house of representatives, and i would like to see this be a bipartisan issue, not a partisan issue. we need the i.r.s. we need them to do a good job, but if this were at the federal bureau of investigation, would we allow that to happen? if this was at the c.i.a., would we allow that to happen?

if this was at the department of justice, would we allow this to happen? why isn't this a bipartisan issue? why can't we get together and say, mr. koskinen, you are the commissioner of the i.r.s., we would respectfully like you to correct what you're doing, we are not on a witch-hunt, we have the facts of the case and we believe the right thing to do is to offer some remedy? that's why republicans are on the floor today. that's why our young congresswoman is leading this charge. i stand behind her. i voted for the rule. i'm going to vote for this. it does the right thing. i thank the gentlewoman for the time. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves? mrs. noem: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: i allow myself 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. crowley: i would add maybe to that list for the gentleman from texas, if it were congress, would we allow this to happen? i yield back -- i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, we have another colleague here on the floor today that serves on the ways and means committee and has diligently worked on i.r.s. issues and has been a leader on bringing some clarity to the situations that we deal with in trying to bring integrity to the i.r.s. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. renacci. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. renacci: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3724, the ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work orce act of 2015, a bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague, representative kristi noem of south dakota. as my previous colleague said, this should be a bipartisan issue. this is an american issue. i spent most of my life in the business world. i've owned and operated over 60 different businesses, employed over 3,000 people and created

thousands of new jobs. throughout my 30-year business career, i've had the privilege of hiring many new talented individuals. when it comes to hiring, the i.r.s. -- in the i.r.s., the treasury inspector general stated, selecting the best candidates for employment is essential in providing the best service to america's taxpayers, maintaining the public trust in tax administration and safeguarding taxpayer right and privacy. however, the i.g. report from december, 2014, found that the i.r.s. fell short of that standard. last year, the i.r.s. hired hundreds of employees who were terminated for misconduct. those serious offenses included willful failure to file tax reforms, falsification of official forms and abuse of i.r.s. leave and property policies. as a businessman, but more importantly as a representative of the american taxpayer, i find this i.g. report inexcusable.

it seems obvious to me but not once did i rehire someone in the real world, in the real world who i previously fired for misconduct. the i.r.s. needs to earn the trust of hardworking american taxpayers. rehiring employees who were fired for these serious offenses further erodes that trust. h.r. 3724 directly addresses this issue. it prohibits the i.r.s. from rehiring employees that were fired for misconduct. this is common sense. as a former business owner, i know it is very difficult decision to let someone go, but rehiring an individual who was asked to leave due to gross misconduct would be insulting to other employees who have faithfully served the business and would present a significant risk to the health of the organization and its customers. the i.g. report found the i.r.s. doesn't take those risks seriously. in fact, the i.r.s. officials

stated the prior conduct and performance issues do not play a significant role in deciding the candidates who are best qualified for hiring. because the i.r.s. hasn't taken those risks seriously, this straightforward, commonsense legislation is needed to restore accountability and trust in the i.r.s. i would like to commend mrs. noem for her leadership on this legislation and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: it appears that america will have to continue to wait for action to stop companies from shifting american jobs overseas and stopping corporate tax dodgers. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3724. i would think as we look around country right now, the integrity of what our government is and how our voters are represented, our citizens are represented is really the case here. and i think the gentlelady -- thank the gentlelady for bringing such a commonsense piece of legislation forward because we know in this town there's nothing less common than common sense. the faith and trust of the american people is based in their belief that the people who work for them are acting in their best interest. always acting in their best interest. the interest of the american people. not in their personal interest, but in the interest of the american people. so when we find out that there are folks who are working on behalf of the american people but they have somehow betrayed that faith and that trust, and

the folks have lost confidence in their government. they lost confidence because of things that happened, not things that were imagined. not some whimsical idea that somehow we can get at somebody for doing this. there's no agency that's feared more in this country than the i.r.s. the question is why would they be so feared? because they can completely shut you down. they can freeze your bang account. they can make you stay up late at night worrying about what's going to happen so when you get that letter from the i.r.s., the next thing you do is contact an attorney to represent you because you don't want to make a mistake. you just don't want to do it. if you find out that within the i.r.s. people working for that agency, but more importantly working for the people of the united states, have violated that trust. these are substaniated results. this is not somebody's idea or way of getting back at somebody.

this is removing bad apples and saying you have violated, you have betrayed the trust of the american people. you are going to leave the agency, but more importantly, you're never coming back in. this isn't any way to somehow get back at a political party or get back at anybody. this is a fact that if we cannot restore the confidence the american people have in us, their faith and trust, why are we here? why do we go through elections? i don't come here to represent my ideas and my beliefs, i come here to represent the values and beliefs of pennsylvania's third congressional district. that's 705,687 americans. not republicans, not democrats, not libertarians, not independents, but americans. this piece of legislation takes into account that these are wrongdoers. these are not people who we want to associate ourselves with. these are people who have used the power of their office, of

their position to somehow work against the very people who employ them. and i would just say at this moment in time, at this moment in our history -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady for standing up for every hardworking american taxpayer and doing the best we can to restore faith and confidence of the american people that they can trust who it is that they elect to represent them and they can trust us to make sure that wrongdoers and punished. once they are asked to leave are not allowed to come back in. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from south dakota reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: i would inquire, mr. speaker, how much time is on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: 24 1/2 for the gentleman from new york. 15 1/2 for the gentlelady from south dakota. mr. crowley: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to have a colleague come and speak on

behalf of this bill today. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i appreciate mrs. noem and her drive to address this very important issue. i believe that the overwhelming majority of people that work at the i.r.s., they are good hardworking, patriotic people who want to do the right thing. i have a serious problem with management. i have a serious problem with the head of the i.r.s. but on this issue, this is just unbelievable that we can't come to a conclusive and absolute, 100% agreement. all we are asking for is that the bad apples, the people who will disturb what is going on in the workplace, who aren't going to act in the best interest of the united states of america, that they be excluded from participation. one of the things that's fascinating, mr. speaker, as we look at this is in response to

the independent review that was done of the i.r.s. and their hiring practices, one of their responses, the question here is, should we go back and review the personnel employment file prior to rehiring somebody? this is what they said. quote, additionally, while they did find that a review of performance and conduct issues could be accomplished earlier in the process, treasury, o.p.m., office of personnel management, and the internal revenue service felt it was not feasible to remove the review of those issues earlier in the hiring process this. action would greatly increase the cost of hiring, likely increasing cycle time beyond the presidential mandate of 80 days requiring additional resources and would not likely yield -- come on. come on. are you kidding me? how long could it possibly take to actually go back and review somebody's performance reviews, look back at their employment history, and see if they have

been acting in the bets interest of the united states of america -- best interest of the united states of america. because clearly in the examples that were there, there are people that willfully don't even file their own tax returns. there are people that are doing some bad stupid stuff. they don't think they have the time and resources to look at it in advance? we have to actually pass a piece of legislation requiring this? that seems entirely reasonable. it's not overly burdensome. and here you have an organization, the i.r.s., that can actually destroy somebody's lives by the mere letter showing up in your mailbox. and they can't even look -- take the time looking at somebody's employment history, that somebody that's already worked at the i.r.s. that's how absurd this organization is. that's why this piece of legislation is so easy to understand. it's so easy to vote for it. it is not a partisan issue. this is just saying, you know

what, for all the good people that work at the i.r.s., let's make sure that the new people that come on or the rehires that come on in this case, are actually addressed and we look at their information prior to hiring. it's that simple. that's why i'm in favor of this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mrs. noem: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: still waiting for a bill to keep american jobs in america and not export them overseas to the tax code. we'll continue to wait for that bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, today we are talking about a bill that will bring integrity to the i.r.s. which will better serve our taxpayers into the future. i'm thrilled to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. really want to thank the gentlelady from south dakota for her leadership in bringing

this bill forward. because, mr. speaker, this bill is about restoring trust. this bill is about holding the i.r.s. accountable. here we are in a week where americans had to file their tax returns. so often just the words, the letters, i.r.s., send a chilling effect through people when they hear those letters. and yet when you look at the arrogance over at the i.r.s., just the attitude they have and the disdain they have towards the very people that pay their bills, the taxpayers, here you have a case where people who have been fired by the i.r.s. for abusing their positions are actually being rehired back to the i.r.s. again, this is the kind of disdain that disgusts people as they fear the i.r.s. the i.r.s. ought to have the same fear towards the people that pay their salaries as people get when they get that letter from the i.r.s. we have had inspector general reports, mr. speaker, in the

treasury department, the inspector general found over 140 i.r.s. agents aren't even accurate in their taxes. there are people who are responsible for auditing american citizens, that aren't even paying their own taxes. this is the kind of disregard for the american people that many we are seeing over at the i.r.s. it's time to rein it in. it's time to bring some accountability and transparency back to the i.r.s. who is afraid of that? what's so wrong with saying if somebody's been fired for cause over at the i.r.s., with the access they have to such sensitive, personal information of taxpayers, why should they be rehired back? it's just basic commence that if somebody has abused their position at the i.r.s., enough is enough. they shouldn't be able to return and have access to that sensitive information anymore. i want to applaud again the gentlelady from south dakota for bringing this commonsense bill forward.

i would urge adoption later on when we have this vote on the house floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: can i inquire of the majority how many more speakers they have? mrs. noem: we think we have two more. mr. crowley: i'm the last speaker on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from south dakota virginia tech. mrs. noem: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i want to begin by thanking my friend from south dakota for her leadership in holding the i.r.s. accountable for what we are seeing today. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3724, the ensuring integrity to the i.r.s. work force act. to join in the outrage of them with my colleagues today on what we are seeing at the i.r.s. with tax day hitting earlier this week, this is an ideal

time to highlight the need for continued oversight. and perhaps ramped up oversight of the internal revenue service. last february the treasury inspector general for tax administration reported the .r.s. had a tendency to rehire former employees with serious misconduct and performance issues. in their review, they found more than 100 former employees were rehired by the i.r.s. despite having significant performance and misconduct problems. like willfully filing to file tax returns. -- failing to file tax returns. a rather important thing for most of us but apparently not for i.r.s. employees. mr. speaker, the families in my district and i are 100% fed up with adhering to a standard that the i.r.s. doesn't even hold their own employees to. we simply will not tolerate the

rehiring of incompetent individuals who fail to do their job in the first place. it's time to put a leash on the i.r.s. and prevent taxpayers from further double standards and further abuse. i strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for h.r. 3724. again, i thank my colleague from south dakota for her excellent leadership on this and i look forward to open debate and voting on this matter as soon as possible. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, just yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. crowley: no disrespect to the sponsor of this bill whatsoever. i have great admiration for her, but i believe this bill could have been taken up on a consent calendar, quite frankly. all this discussion about support on both sides. the reality is, though, we are using freshes time here on the floor on an issue that could

have been on a consent calendar and we are not addressing the real issues of concern to the american people. and that is the continuing loss of jobs here in america because of our tax code that we refuse to fix, that is shifting jobs and companies. yield myself an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: that are shifting american corporations overseas to inversion and shifting american jobs overseas because of those inversions. we are not having a hearing on this. we are not doing anything here on the floor to address this issue. instead we take up issues that quite frankly could have been on a consent calendar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. noem: we are finished with speakers and ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i believe it should be the beginning and not the end of he discussion on how to best fill the giant corporate

loopholes which allow them to skip out on paying the taxes that all of our constituents have to pay. this is one of the many major issues this congress should undertake but instead we are all too busy governing by press releases. this congress has done nothing to address the zika virus that could be a threat to all women who are pregnant or looking to become pregnant. but we have this consent bill here on the floor for debate. this congress has done nothing to address the crisis of lead in our drinking water, a crisis vividly on display in flint but one that lurks in the pipes of hundreds of thousands of cities and towns across our great land. yet we have this consent bill here on the calendar for debate. this congress hasn't even attempted to pass a budget for our country. the majority has not proposed a budget for our country, which

is one of the most basic functions we can do as an institution to ensure we make the necessary investments possible while also getting our economic house in order. yet, we have what i would consider a consent bill on the floor today, taking up an hour's debate. but we will always have time for message bills. sure, they don't create a job for an unemployed person in new houston or t or l.a. or increase the take-home pay of any underpaid worker or make college more affordable for middle-class kids or strengthen social security for our seniors of today and tomorrow. but they sound great on talk

radio today and the weekend, this bill is advertised as the republicans' idea of tax reform. it does not reform the tax code , but way, shape or form that's what they portray it as. let me explain something about the tax code to my republican colleagues. our tax code is inefficient. you see that when large corporations are paying less tax than the employees who work for them. it's overly complicated. you see that when multinational corporations avoid paying the same taxes our constituents back home have to pay simply by hiring expensive lawyers that our constituents quite frankly cannot afford. it's unfair. you see that when corporations can donell paying their fair share of tax -- can dodge

paying their fair share of taxes by switching their post office box to a foreign country, something our neighbors back home if they attempted to do that would be arrested for tax evasion, but not corporations. individuals, if you do that, you're arrested for tax evasion, but not an american corporation. and yet my republican colleagues continue to refuse to address this issue. and it does not, and maybe more importantly than anything else, it does not promote job growth here in the united states. you see this when congress refuses to repeal the tax break for companies to fire their workers here, they get a tax break for firing american workers and moving their jobs overseas. this congress must tackle these serious issues, but we're not today. we continue to wait for legislation, for a hearing on these important issues.

democrats stand ready to work with you all, my republican colleagues, on commonsense legislation to plug the corporate tax loopholes that are literally draining the funds our country needs to function properly. and democrats stand ready to work with you to fix the tax code that is not only inefficient, not only complicated, not only unfair but one that does not promote job growth here in the united states. that is something we want to work with you in a bipartisan way. unfortunately, we'll have to continue to wait for another day before the majority is serious about working together in a bipartisan way to make our tax system fairer for all working men and women in the united states. but let me be clear once again, the american people will not wait any longer. with that, mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: mr. speaker, we've heard repeatedly from my colleague on the other side of the aisle about why we should not be spending time on this topic today, why we shouldn't have dedicated an hour's worth of debate to making sure that we talk about h.r. 3724, ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work force act, but i think he's forgotten about what kind of information the people of this country turn over to the i.r.s. they turn over their social security numbers, their financial information. a lot of the security they have for their families, their homes and their businesses they completely trust the i.r.s. to take care of it, to protect it and to make sure that they use it in the correct manner so that they might abide by the law and pay their taxes like honest, hardworking americans do. to say we shouldn't spend time making sure that criminals and people fired for misconduct don't have access to that

information to me is silly. that's exactly what our job is. mr. speaker, the i.r.s. needs integrity, and we're here to bring it today. the white house has issued a veto threat against this bill. they said that the i.r.s. will be forced to fire people because of this bill if it were signed into law. well, i read the white house's statement of administration policy on my bill. and the statement says it's unnecessary because current i.r.s. processes already ensure that the agency does not rehire former employees with significant conduct issues. well, i guess the white house didn't read the report. the inspector general expressed concerns that the i.r.s. continues to hire individuals with significant prior conduct and performance issues even after the agency supposedly made upgrades to its hiring practices. i'll remind you, meesh, that the inspector general's -- mr. speaker, that the inspector general's reew for those fired and then rehired included employees with a history of fraud, falsification of

documents, workplace disruption, absence and an unauthorized accessing of taxpayer information. mr. speaker, the inspector general identified approximately 140 individuals who are currently today with the i.r.s. who had been previously fired for cause. we're talking about an agency that employs 80,000 people. surely they can find 140 people who vice president committed fraud or -- who committed fraud or falsified documents. we ask that we determine what part of the process it should fully vet candidates in terms of prior performance. in fact, the i.r.s. has given an opportunity to fully respond to the inspector general's report. in its response, the agency insisted its processes were sufficient. but mr. speaker, the agency still only begins to vet the candidates for employment only after the entire hiring process is completed and after a formal offer of employment has been

extended. so regardless of any changes, the i.r.s. has made to its hiring practices, the inspector general said he remains very concerned because i.r.s. independent documents indicate it is hiring individuals with significant prior conduct and performance issues. mr. speaker, because the i.r.s. hasn't taken action is why we are here today. this bill is simple. it just says that the i.r.s. cannot rehire employees who have been fired for misconduct. it's something the i.r.s. should have taken on it. because they didn't that's why we're here today. it's our job to protect the taxpayers, make sure their information is safe with the agency that they by law need to turn over to passedbill we just heard with a 345-78 vote.