[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 33 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1210-S1212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I would like to speak about an issue, but 
first I would like to yield to the minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2011

  Mr. McCONNELL. I am here in support of what our colleague from 
Arizona is going to be talking about shortly. It is basically this. We 
have a White House that is busily at work trying to quiet the voices of 
those who oppose them by doing the following: They are proposing a new 
regulation directed at 501(c)(4) organizations that have been active 
for over 50 years in expressing themselves about the issues of the day 
in our country. This regulation actually predates the IRS abuses we saw 
during the 2012 election.

[[Page S1211]]

  I have spoken a number of times--including a couple of major speeches 
at one of the think tanks here in town--about what a threat it is to 
citizens when the heavy hand of the IRS comes down on them because they 
speak up against policies of the government.
  This regulation that Senator Flake is going to speak about here in a 
few minutes that we would like to see delayed for a year has generated 
120,000 comments. I would say to my friend from Arizona that I am told 
there has been no regulation in the history of the IRS that has even 
approached 120,000 comments. Is that the understanding of the Senator 
from Arizona?
  Mr. FLAKE. That is. In fact, to give some kind of scale here, the 
Keystone Pipeline, which has been extremely controversial for months 
and months, has generated about 7,000 comments--7,000 comments for an 
issue such as that. This has generated north of 100,000.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think it is reasonable to assume that the reason for 
that is there are groups out there all across America, on the right, on 
the left, and in the center who have taken a look at this new 
regulation and understand that it is the Federal Government using the 
heavy hand of the IRS to try to shut them up, to make it impossible for 
them to criticize the government or people like the Senator from 
Arizona and myself. It is none of the business of the government to be 
quieting the voices of the American people.
  I know our Democratic friends are upset because some conservative 
groups have been very active. I do not recall the same sense of outrage 
over the last 50 years when groups on the left were actively involved.
  I would say to my friend from Arizona, since these comments are 
coming from all over, it appears, does it not, that there is a lot of 
collateral damage here, that the administration may have wanted to 
target their enemies, but they are hitting some of their friends as 
well?
  Mr. FLAKE. That is correct. Many of the organizations that have 
sounded alarm bells here are organizations such as the ACLU, the Sierra 
Club, and others, social welfare organizations that advocate for policy 
as well, that are concerned that this goes too far.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The final thing I would say to my friend from Arizona 
is that we have a new Commissioner of the IRS. He has an opportunity, 
does he not, to clean up an agency that is already in a lot of trouble 
because of the IRS scandals, because of the new responsibilities they 
have been given to enforce ObamaCare? This is an agency in trouble 
already before it wades into a political thicket such as this, 
particularly when it appears as if this whole regulation really 
originated at the White House, not at the IRS.
  I am reminded that the Commissioner of the IRS during the Nixon 
administration was asked by the White House to help target President 
Nixon's enemies, and the Commissioner of the IRS said: No. No.
  I wonder if my friend from Arizona agrees with me that the 
appropriate response from the new Commissioner of the IRS--responsible 
for cleaning up this troubled agency--to the White House ought to be, 
no, I am not going to participate in your effort to quiet the voices of 
your political foes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would certainly agree. If the IRS wants to establish or 
re-establish credibility that has been lost, then the Commissioner 
should say to the White House: I will act independently here.
  To go forward with this rule, after what has gone on, would simply be 
going in the other direction and would be seen--and I think justifiably 
so--to be working hand in glove with the White House to stifle free 
speech.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator from Arizona for his leadership 
on this very important issue. I do not think there is anything more 
important to our democracy than First Amendment freedom of speech. The 
last thing an agency whose principal responsibility is to collect 
revenue for the Federal Government--the last thing an agency like that 
needs to be involved in is quieting the voices of the critics of this 
administration--or any other administration, for that matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I certainly echo his 
comments. I do rise today to urge the Senate to pass legislation to 
prevent the IRS from trampling on free speech rights, particularly 
those of 501(c)(4) organizations.
  The Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act--it is a 
mouthful, I know--is sponsored by Senator Roberts from Kansas and 
myself. It would prohibit for 1 year the finalization of a proposed IRS 
regulation that would specifically limit the advocacy and educational 
activities of these groups.
  This bill would also prevent additional targeting of 501(c)(4) 
organizations by restoring the IRS standards and definitions that were 
in place before the agency started targeting conservative groups back 
in 2010.
  Last spring we learned that the IRS was targeting conservative groups 
applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, thanks to a report by the 
agency's inspector general. Since this discovery several IRS employees, 
including the Acting Commissioner, have resigned. Investigations by the 
House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Department of Justice are 
ongoing.
  Nevertheless, on November 29 the IRS published a proposed rule that 
would restrict the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations, limit their 
speech, and curtail their civic participation. This rule singles out 
the same groups that were previously targeted by the IRS and threatens 
to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and educational 
activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives. 
These activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and 
social welfare, which is the precise purpose for which 501(c)(4) 
organizations are structured.
  Unfortunately, this proposed rule would suppress these organizations' 
voices by forcing them to quit these activities or be shut down.
  While this administration may be focused on quieting its conservative 
critics, even liberal groups have denounced the rule and called 
attention to the detrimental impact on free speech by organizations of 
all ideologies. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this 
rule ``will produce the same structural issues at the IRS that led to 
the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various 
charitable and social welfare groups for undue scrutiny.''
  In response to the Obama administration's claim that these tax groups 
have become confusing in the aftermath of a Citizens United decision, 
Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign has commented that 
501(c)(4) organizations ``weren't invented in the last election cycle; 
they've been around for generations. Their purpose isn't to hide 
donors, it's to advance policies.''
  Even the Sierra Club has hammered the IRS rule.
  As of this morning, I believe it is at least 94,000 comments the 
minority leader mentioned, and it may be north of 100,000 now, on the 
proposed rule have been submitted. This marks the largest number of 
comments ever submitted to any rulemaking. Let me repeat that. This is 
the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rulemaking.
  As I said before, to put it in perspective, the Keystone Pipeline 
proposed rule we have heard so much about has registered just over 
7,000 comments. That is compared to somewhere near 100,000 comments 
here. Clearly the public sees through this administration's veiled 
attempt to quash free speech and to shut down opposition to its 
priorities.
  Yesterday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this 
same legislation, identical legislation in the House, by a vote of 243-
176. Already, this legislation in the Senate has 40 Senate cosponsors. 
It clearly deserves the consideration and support of the full Senate.
  However, this legislation has not been permitted to come up for 
debate in the full Senate. Earlier today Democrats on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee voted to oppose it, stalling further consideration. 
I suppose the veto threat issued by the President may have had 
something to do with that. This veto threat is unfortunate. It is 
clearly a disproportionate response to legislation aimed at protecting 
free speech rights of conservatives and liberals alike.

[[Page S1212]]

  This bill is simple. It only suspends new IRS rulemaking related to 
501(c)(4)s until the ongoing investigations are completed. It simply 
suspends for 1 year. That is prudent and necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of free speech rights by 
these groups by approving this legislation to prevent the finalization 
of the IRS's rule or any other that seeks to continue to target groups 
based on ideology.
  Madam President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2011, that the 
bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. This bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Finance Committee, because it changes the Tax Code. For many months 
before I became the Chair of the committee, the Finance Committee 
staff, on a bipartisan basis, worked very hard and very comprehensively 
in a thoughtful way to address this issue, interviewing 28 IRS 
employees and reviewing approximately 500,000 pages of documents.
  It is my hope--and again, I have been the Chair of the committee for 
only a little bit over 1 week--it is my hope and expectation that our 
report will be ready for release next month or in early April.
  The Finance Committee, as I have indicated, is the committee of 
jurisdiction. It has the technical resources, the expertise, and 
experience to best fashion the appropriate remedies. My view is these 
matters are simply too important to be handled on the floor without the 
opportunity for the Finance Committee to address these issues, examine 
them in hearings, and to have meaningful debate.
  The Senator from Arizona believes that the new rules from the IRS are 
not fair because they limit the public debate. I want to indicate to 
him and to our colleagues that I don't take a back seat to anybody in 
terms of promoting public debate. Free speech and fair treatment for 
all Americans--all Americans--in the political process is absolutely 
central to what I believe government ought to be all about.
  I have tried, with our colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, to 
show that even in these difficult, polarizing political times, the 
parties can come together. Senator Murkowski puts it very well in terms 
of what the future ought to be all about. It truly embodies our 
campaign disclosure bill--which, I would mention, is the first 
bipartisan campaign finance bill in the Senate since the days of 
McCain-Feingold.
  Senator Murkowski says it best when she says that what she wants, 
with respect to the rules for political debate in this country, is the 
``even-steven'' rule. She wants to make sure the same principles that 
apply to the NRA apply to the Sierra Club, so that all Americans, in 
the course of political debates, are treated fairly. Also, we both 
believe that shining a light on the dark money that pulses through the 
American political system is not going to inhibit free speech. To the 
contrary, it is going to enhance the public's right to know about who 
is behind the political ads that bombard them during the political 
season without accountability or transparency.
  I agree with Justice Scalia when he said:

       Requiring people to stand up in public for their political 
     acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is 
     doomed.

  So there are two reasons for my objection. First, the Finance 
Committee is the committee of jurisdiction that ought to have the 
opportunity to address these questions, and I want to assure my friend 
from Arizona--whom I have worked with many times on issues--that having 
just become the Chair, I intend to work very expeditiously on this 
matter, particularly with Senator Hatch.
  Second, I point out to my colleagues on the floor there is a 
bipartisan opportunity in the days ahead to address many of these 
issues. It is embodied very eloquently by Senator Murkowski, who says: 
If we are going to be serious about promoting the widest possible 
debate in this country and treating everyone fairly, we do it in accord 
with that even-steven principle.
  For those reasons, I object at this time to the unanimous consent 
request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. If I could, I want to respond to a few of the Senator's 
items.
  The Senator is correct, it falls under the Finance Committee's 
jurisdiction. That is part of the reason why I bring this forward. The 
Finance Committee is undergoing an investigation that is not yet 
complete, so I think it would be prudent to forestall the 
implementation of new rules by the IRS while the Finance Committee 
investigation is ongoing. I think we all agree we shouldn't move 
forward on imprecise or incomplete information. That is why we are 
simply saying we are not proposing a rule, we are saying simply delay 
the new rule until investigations can be completed.
  Also, with regard to the issue of fairness, I should note that this 
applies to 501(c)(4) organizations, nonprofit organizations. There are 
other organizations that are also nonprofit but are not included in 
this proposed rulemaking--for example, labor unions. They offer, under 
a nonprofit status as well, a 501(c)(5). They are not included here.
  The Senator correctly says we should be concerned about fairness for 
all groups that are under this kind of nonprofit umbrella. That is 
concerning to a lot of people as well, because those organized under 
501(c)(4) status are targeted here when those organized under (c)(5) 
status are not, when they have some of the same restrictions on what 
they can do. So we would be imposing new rulemaking and new rules on 
some organizations and not others. That is one concern and another 
reason to forestall new rulemaking until we have more complete 
information about what is going on at the IRS.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________