[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4524-S4525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 1 week ago today, the personal 
financial information of several prominent Americans was made public in 
only the latest leak of sensitive data from the Internal Revenue 
Service. To put it another way, it appears that an anonymous source 
committed a felony by releasing the confidential information of 
American citizens, which a media outlet then published. Now, the way 
this leak has been covered in the press may not suggest it, but the 
most alarming part isn't whose information was involved; it is how it 
was allowed to happen at all--at all.
  The American people know that having the personal information they 
give to the IRS made public isn't just a fear reserved for the highest 
earners. On multiple occasions in the last decade, individuals and 
organizations alike have had to watch as their filing details wander 
far from the IRS's databases. And it goes beyond pay stubs. The IRS 
holds massive storage of sensitive details, from healthcare expenses, 
to retirement savings, to charitable contributions. They hold 
addresses, information about dependents, and associations with 
organizations that may not be tax-deductible.
  Needless to say, there are good arguments for paring back the scope 
of what information this Agency is allowed to collect in the first 
place. But here is the bottom line: American taxpayers are required by 
law to comply with invasive disclosure requirements, and they are doing 
it with less and less confidence that the Federal Government will honor 
their trust.
  A fundamental piece of our Nation's social contract is fraying, but 
just how worried you should be about it apparently depends on your 
personal politics. The precise circumstances of this latest leak have 
not yet been made clear, but the recent history of IRS negligence and 
outright political targeting tells conservatives to be especially 
worried.
  As our colleagues remember all too well, years ago, the State of 
California's database of private donor data for over 1,000 nonprofit 
organizations was made public illegally. A few years later, 
confidential IRS donor information from a conservative organization's 
tax filings was published. To no one's surprise, that information made 
its way into the hands of liberal groups with opposite views on key 
issues. Of course, we are talking about the same IRS that made slow-
walking requests and filings from conservative organizations a matter 
of internal policy under the last Democratic administration.
  So these situations all have two things in common: first, a blatant 
political agenda aimed at advancing the cause of the political left, 
and second, the utter absence of criminal charges against the leakers--
no charges against the leakers.
  So let's be clear. As soon as sensitive personal information is 
leaked, the damage is already done. The genie can't be put back in the 
bottle, and the Federal Government has proven far too often that it is 
at best, incapable and at worse, unwilling to protect taxpayers' data 
from misuse by the political left. That is why I have been outspoken in 
support of efforts to reduce taxpayers' exposure to unnecessary IRS 
collection in the first place.
  But every time a leak goes without serious investigation and criminal 
prosecution, basic public trust in our tax system suffers, and that 
fraying trust may eventually be irreparable. That is why I joined 
Ranking Member Grassley and Ranking Member Crapo to demand that the 
Department of Justice and the FBI immediately investigate last week's 
leak and aggressively pursue criminal charges against those who are 
responsible--actual consequences as a matter of justice and as a 
practical deterrent. The Federal Government owes taxpayers nothing 
less.
  Unfortunately, thus far, the Biden administration hasn't just 
neglected to aggressively prosecute overt discrimination; in some 
cases, it is actually trying to promote it.
  Take the massive spending package Democrats rammed through in the 
name of COVID relief. The spending bill was billed as urgent, but its 
authors apparently had time to bake in a provision directing relief 
funds to restaurants on the basis of race and sex

[[Page S4525]]

and another directing funds to farmers on the basis of race. So we are 
talking about blatantly unconstitutional discrimination.
  Fortunately, the independent judiciary has stepped in to stop it. 
Over the last few weeks, multiple Federal courts have struck down these 
provisions, including an appeals panel led by Judge Amul Thapar from my 
home State of Kentucky. But these are hardly the only instances in 
which Washington Democrats have tried to impose their own radical 
preferences on ordinary Americans

                          ____________________