[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 66 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3359-S3360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      IRS TARGETING INVESTIGATIONS

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, late last week we learned of the apology by 
the Internal Revenue Service official about the targeting of certain 
information and applications for 501(c)(4) organizations in this 
country. Certainly the indication is that because of certain words 
generally considered to suggest that organization has conservative 
leanings, those organizations were targeted for different or additional 
treatment at the Internal Revenue Service. It was indicated there was 
an apology offered. This became a significant topic of conversation 
over the weekend by certain elected officials, certainly by my 
colleagues in the Senate but by the American people as well.
  Last Wednesday, May 8, before this revelation was known, the 
Appropriations Subcommittee for Financial Services was holding its 
hearing--usually an annual affair--in which we were discussing the 
appropriations request in the President's budget for the Treasury 
Department. That gave me the opportunity to visit with Secretary Lew. 
Of course, the Internal Revenue Service is a component of the Treasury 
Department. My conversation with Secretary Lew during that hearing 
dealt with a related topic.
  While I have great objection to targeting any group--liberal, 
conservative, Republican, Democratic-leaning--certainly the ability for 
us to examine an application is important. But none of us would expect 
or consider it to be appropriate that the Internal Revenue Service 
would treat one application different from another based upon its 
apparent political leanings.
  While that is terrible enough, I also want to point out the topic I 
raised with the Secretary, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, last Wednesday. 
This comes from media reports and from complaints by organizations. The 
reason this seems so important is the admission that conservative 
groups were treated differently or one group was treated differently 
from another within the Internal Revenue Service lends credibility to 
press reports and to complaints by organizations across the country 
about their treatment by the IRS.
  My questions to Secretary Lew, some of them that day but also 
submitted in writing since then, deal with a number of instances in 
which it was reported by an organization or a press report that the 
Internal Revenue Service improperly disclosed information about donors 
to 501(c)(4) organizations. Last April, the IRS apparently improperly 
disclosed schedule B donor lists on the form 990 of an organization 
called National Organizations for Marriage. It is an a 501(c)(4) group. 
While the form 990 is publicly available, tax laws and IRS regulations 
make clear that the schedule B--that is the donor list on the 990 is 
not to be released for 501(c)(3)s or (c)(4)s.
  The issue was raised. The organization complained. It was reported in 
the

[[Page S3360]]

press. Part of my inquiry to Secretary Lew is what has transpired since 
that point in time. Have the employees at the Internal Revenue Service 
who released this information been challenged for their actions? Have 
they been admonished? Have they been treated appropriately for what 
clearly seems to be an inappropriate release of private taxpayer 
information?
  The second example was the IRS turned over several applications for 
nonprofit status, including the pending applications for tax-exempt 
status, for several groups. They were released and ended up in the 
hands of an organization called ProPublica. Again, while the 
applications for nonprofit status are available to the public after an 
exemption is granted, they are protected as tax return information 
while that application is pending. This organization then published 
that information, despite that that is what I understand to be a 
felony. Publishing unauthorized tax returns or return information is a 
felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $5,000 or 
both. Again, my question of the Treasury Secretary is that I have not 
been able to confirm any action has been taken, any recommendation from 
the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, that anybody be 
prosecuted for publishing private taxpayer information.
  Finally, we learned earlier this year, again, of something described 
as an inadvertent IRS disclosure related to releasing one page of the 
schedule B showing donors to the Republican Governors Association. 
These are alarming in and of themselves and become more significant to 
me, having learned that there is a bias, a treatment different of one 
taxpayer over another at the IRS. While it is important for us to 
determine, and I am anxious to read the inspector general's report as 
to the findings about what occurred with the singling out of certain 
organizations for a different kind of treatment at the IRS, I also 
think it is important for us to pursue the issue of the release of 
information that comes from one organization's filing that is 
inappropriate to release and ultimately its being used by an 
organization that apparently has a different political perspective than 
the one whose application is pending.
  Again, I would raise this issue that now we know something is wrong 
at the IRS, there is more to be discovered as we look at how this 
information was released. Were people who released it punished? Is 
there any pending criminal action against the individuals who published 
this information?
  I am surprised by the circumstance we find ourselves in. I never 
would have expected this from the Internal Revenue Service, which must 
be, needs to be, and has to be above the political fray.
  The IRS can never be an instrument of any political party, of any 
administration, or of any political philosophy. All Americans have the 
right to assume that the IRS, which has great powers and consequences 
upon the taxpayers of this country, is operating in a neutral, fair, 
and appropriate manner.
  The circumstances now present themselves in a way that we have to 
wonder about more than just these three examples. These three examples 
are ones now worthy of additional concern by Members of the Senate, 
and, even more importantly, by the IRS and individuals within the 
administration who are responsible for the management and governance of 
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.
  I have submitted a series of questions to Secretary Lew. As a member 
of the Appropriations Committee responsible for the Internal Revenue 
Service's appropriations, I look forward to seeing what those answers 
are and to make certain appropriate action is taken in regard to 
individuals who apparently have violated the public trust, with the 
understanding that all of us expect the privacy the Internal Revenue 
Service is to provide.
  Once again I want to outline that while we learned something over the 
weekend that is very troublesome, there may be much more to this story 
that has yet to be told, and I am anxious to see the answers that come 
from the Treasury Department in regard to the Internal Revenue Service.
  In fact, I encourage all Members of the Senate to reach the same 
conclusion--no matter their political leaning or philosophical bent, 
whether Republican or Democrat--that the Internal Revenue Service with 
its tremendous enforcement capabilities and the tremendous consequences 
it has to the American people in the decisions it makes always be above 
the political fray.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to be on the Senate 
floor today to outline an extended concern I have about actions at the 
Internal Revenue Service. I anxiously wait for the Treasury Department 
to respond and provide answers to our subcommittee, committee, and the 
full Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________