BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mrs. Noem and her drive to address this very important issue.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people who work at the IRS are good, hardworking, patriotic people who want to do the right thing. I have a serious problem with management and I have a serious problem with the head of the IRS, but on this issue, this is just unbelievable that we can't come to a conclusive and absolute 100 percent 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 is fascinating, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this, is in response to the independent review that was done of the IRS and their hiring practices. And the question here is: Should we go back and review the personnel employment file prior to rehiring somebody?
This is what they said: ``Additionally, while it did find that a review of performance and conduct issues could be accomplished earlier in the process, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Internal Revenue Service believed that it was not feasible to move the review of these issues earlier in the hiring process. This action would greatly increase the cost of hiring, likely increase cycle time beyond the Presidential mandate of 80 days, require additional resources, and not likely yield a reasonable return on investment.''
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 best interest of the United States of America?
Clearly, in the examples that are 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 is not overly burdensome. Here you have an organization, the IRS, that can actually destroy somebody's life by a mere letter showing up in your mailbox, and they can't even take the time to look at somebody's employment history, somebody who has already worked at the IRS?
That is how absurd this organization is, and that is why this piece of legislation is so easy to understand, it is so easy to vote for. It is not a partisan issue. This is just saying: Do you know what? For all the good people who work at the IRS, let's make sure that the new people who come on, or the rehires who come on, in this case, are actually addressed and we look at their information prior to hiring.
It is that simple. That is why I am in favor of this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT