Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, it is not too often I come to the floor to oppose an amendment, especially at this late hour; but when I was sworn in as a Member of Congress, I took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. I have grave concerns that this amendment is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the Federal Government from enacting what are known as bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.

Courts use two main criteria to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder: one, whether specific individuals are affected; and, two, whether legislation inflicts punishment.

Clearly, the specific prong is met here: this amendment punitively targets a specific individual--the IRS Commissioner. The Supreme Court has held that targeting specific employees for reduction in pay is punishment. Specifically, in United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court held that a provision in an appropriations bill which cut off the pay of certain named government employees was punishment and struck down that provision as unconstitutional.

Under this precedent, punitively targeting the IRS Commissioner in an appropriations law by reducing his pay is an unconstitutional act.

Some might claim that because the IRS Commissioner is appointed, the precedent is somehow not applicable. To the contrary, in Lovett, the three government employees who had their pay cut were, in fact, political appointees.

Others might claim that because it names an office rather than an individual, it will somehow pass a constitutional test. This is a distinction without a difference. There is only one Commissioner of Internal Revenue. He is readily ascertainable.

My fellow colleagues, this is not about whether you believe the IRS Commissioner has done a good job or whether you believe he has committed an impeachable or censurable offense. This is a separate question, and this should be dealt with in a separate process.

This is not about defending the IRS Commissioner. This is about defending the United States Constitution. We should uphold our oaths, and we should defeat this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source