[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7008-7012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                THE IRS

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak on a matter that 
deserves the attention of everyone in this Chamber.
  By now we all know about what is going on at the Internal Revenue 
Service. We have seen the report from the Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration, TIGTA, indicating that between 2010 and 2012 
the IRS was targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt 
status for increased levels of scrutiny.
  We have read the accounts of conservative groups that were asked 
improper questions about their donors while some of their applications 
were delayed for more than 3 years, even as applications for groups 
friendly to the President and liberal causes were promptly approved.
  We have heard the apologies from senior IRS officials and the 
condemnations from the White House itself. While we know for a 
certainty that this unacceptable behavior was going on at the IRS, 
there is still much more we do not know.
  For example, we still do not know why the targeting began or why only 
conservative groups were targeted by the IRS examiners.

[[Page 7009]]

  We do not know the full extent to which senior officials at the IRS 
and Department of Treasury became aware of these practices, when they 
found out, and what they did or did not do to put a stop to these 
practices.
  Perhaps most importantly, we do not know why, when Members of 
Congress asked questions about these issues last year, and after senior 
officials certainly knew of the problem--or problems--we were led to 
believe that no groups were being targeted.
  Indeed, neither Congress nor the American people learned anything 
about these activities from the responsible officials until they were 
trapped and their hands were forced.
  There are not words to describe what has gone on here. Some of us 
have tried. Words such as ``unconscionable,'' ``unbelievable,'' and 
``Nixonian'' have been thrown around, rightfully, in my opinion.
  But regardless of the words we use to describe it, this is easily the 
most shocking and outrageous turn of events we have seen in Washington 
in some time--and that is saying something.
  One thing I am glad to see is that these actions have, for the most 
part, been condemned by Members of both parties. In the end, I hope 
both Republicans and Democrats will work together to address these 
issues.
  I have said from the outset that it does not matter if a tax-exempt 
group is liberal, conservative, or moderate. It is an outrage that the 
IRS would single out any group based on its political beliefs. On that 
point there is bipartisan agreement in Congress and throughout the 
country.
  On the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and I are 
undertaking a bipartisan investigation into this matter to find out 
exactly what happened and make sure this type of thing never happens 
again.
  I am happy to be working with Chairman Baucus on this effort, and I 
want to assure my colleagues that we are going to get to the bottom of 
this. We are going to find out just how far down the rabbit hole the 
IRS went in singling out groups based on their political beliefs. We 
are going to find out why the IRS ignored a bedrock rule of tax 
administration: Treat similarly situated taxpayers similarly--always. 
We are going to find out exactly who was responsible, and we are going 
to hold them accountable for their actions.
  The IRS needs to come clean about what went on here. Chairman Baucus 
and I intend to make sure they do.
  Sadly, while the targeting of conservative groups in the review 
process has gotten most of the attention thus far, there are other 
issues involving the IRS that are every bit as disconcerting.
  There are news reports indicating that in 2012, the same IRS office 
improperly disclosed confidential information about certain 
conservative groups to media organizations.
  Last November, the journalist group ProPublica requested 501(c)(4) 
applications for 67 different nonprofits. Less than 2 weeks later, the 
IRS produced application documents submitted by 31 of the 
organizations. Included in this group of documents were the 
applications from nine conservative organizations that were still under 
consideration by the IRS. ProPublica subsequently posted six of those 
applications in redacted form on the Internet and published articles 
analyzing the information they obtained.
  This is disturbing for at least three reasons. First and foremost, 
under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is prohibited 
from disclosing applications for tax-exempt status that are still under 
review. While the IRS is authorized, under section 6104, to release 
application materials of groups that have already been granted tax-
exempt status, pending applications are required by law to remain 
confidential. This appears to be a pretty cut-and-dried violation of 
the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that civil and criminal penalties 
may apply.
  Second, the IRS responded to ProPublica's request in just 13 days. 
That seems extraordinarily swift, and it raises the question of how 
long the IRS normally takes to respond to such document requests. I do 
not want to prejudge anything, but I suspect it usually takes longer 
than 13 days to hear back from the IRS. It certainly takes longer than 
that for the IRS to respond to requests from Congress.
  Finally, this revelation comes not too long after other allegations 
that the IRS disclosed confidential information submitted by 
conservative nonprofits.
  In the spring of 2012, activist groups and media outlets began 
posting confidential donor information regarding the National 
Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, on the 
Internet. Such information is also required by law to be kept 
confidential.
  Although the IRS is authorized to release yearly forms filed by tax-
exempt organizations, the law prohibits donor information from being 
disclosed, and that is whether it is a conservative, moderate, or 
liberal organization. Yet National Organization for Marriage's 
documents that found their way online in the middle of a Presidential 
election appeared to have come from the IRS. This was suspicious, to 
say the least.
  That is why, in May of 2012, I sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner 
requesting an investigation into whether the IRS publicly disclosed 
confidential donor information about the National Organization for 
Marriage. To date, I have not received a substantive response.
  So in addition to the revelations that the IRS was improperly 
targeting conservative groups for scrutiny of their 501(c)(4) 
applications, we have these unanswered questions about the possible 
illegal disclosure of confidential information to media outlets and 
other organizations. This is another matter that needs to be resolved 
in order to restore the credibility of the IRS as a government agency.
  That is why I, along with all the Republican members of the Senate 
Finance Committee, have submitted a letter to the Treasury Inspector 
General asking that he look into these issues.
  Among other things, our letter requests that TIGTA--that is the 
Inspector General's organization--investigate to determine which 
employees at the IRS were responsible for improperly disclosing 
confidential documents to ProPublica and whether any actions have been 
taken against them.
  In addition, this letter asks for an investigation into whether the 
IRS followed its usual Freedom of Information Act procedures in its 
prompt response to ProPublica's document request.
  Our letter asks TIGTA to determine whether the IRS ever undertook an 
investigation to determine if the agency was responsible for leaking 
the National Organization for Marriage's donor information.
  The American people have a right to expect government agencies to 
perform their functions in a neutral, unbiased manner. When any agency 
breaks that trust, it undermines the credibility of the entire 
government.
  These are not matters that can simply be wished away by public 
apologies and condemnations.
  They cannot be covered up by a handful of resignations, and they are 
not covered up by an apology. I hope the administration knows this. The 
only way to fully address these issues and to fully restore the 
credibility of the IRS is to have full accounting of the facts. In one 
way or another, we are going to learn all we can about the facts and 
what went on there. I hope we can do so with the full and complete 
cooperation of the administration.
  Look, the IRS is the most powerful agency in government. Our 
liberties depend upon an impartial IRS. We know many of the employees 
of the IRS are represented by one of the toughest unions in this 
country. We can presume from that most of them are not Republicans. Be 
that as it may, the Democrats I know whom I honor and respect are those 
who keep their word, live within constraints, follow the rules, do what 
is right, and fight hard for their principles.
  But the IRS is not a place where we should be doing anything but 
fighting hard for the principles of fair treatment of all U.S. 
citizens. I would be decrying this if the IRS was doing this to liberal 
organizations. We do not expect it to ever do that, but I would surely 
be decrying it. All I can say is that the

[[Page 7010]]

very essence of liberty is involved with what the IRS does or is doing. 
If we cannot rely on the most powerful agency in government to treat 
people fairly, then this country is in much greater trouble than many 
of us think it is. We know we are in trouble. We know we are living 
beyond our means. We know we are not doing what is right in this 
country. We know Congress could do a much better job than it is doing. 
That includes both Democrats and Republicans. It is inexcusable for an 
agency with the power the IRS has to be involved in these types of 
shenanigans. It is chilling, absolutely chilling to anybody who thinks 
about it, that this most powerful agency can basically come down on 
anybody for almost any reason if it is not honest.
  We have to restore the trust and the honesty of the IRS. We have to 
be able to rely on the IRS being fair, impartial, and in doing what is 
right. I think I speak for my colleagues on the Democratic side. Many 
of them are as outraged as I am about what went on here. It is not 
right. I think the American people fully understand that.
  I appreciate those who are honest. I appreciate those who do abide by 
their ethical constraints. I appreciate those who are not political at 
the IRS. There are many good people working there. I do not want them 
to be besmirched by the few. There might be a little bit more than a 
few people who do not honor the ethical constraints that the IRS simply 
has to live up to. Let's hope neither side will ever again use the IRS 
for political purposes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to follow 
up on the news that we have had on the IRS situation, which I know is 
concerning to all Americans, Democrats, Republicans, everyone. The 
power of government is real and the power of the IRS is very real. So 
anything involving an abuse of power in the IRS is going to concern 
Americans irrespective of their political leanings.
  Before I do, I just wish to comment on something that happened a few 
moments ago at a press conference at the White House. I have tremendous 
respect for the Office of the Presidency and for anyone who would hold 
themselves out to hold the office. So I say this with the highest 
respect.
  I think the President today in his press conference potentially made 
a mistake in an answer he gave. I would encourage the White House to 
clear it up as soon as possible. He was asked specifically if he or 
anyone in the White House knew about what was going on at the IRS 
before April 22 of this year.
  The President's answer was that he did not know about the inspector 
general's report until he read about it in the press. So I would submit 
to you he did not answer that question. I am not implying he did know 
about it. I am just encouraging the White House and those there to 
clear this up as soon as possible.
  It is kind of reminiscent of when Attorney General Holder would not 
answer Senator Paul's question about whether American citizens could be 
targeted in the homeland with a drone. That led--we all remember what 
it led to. It is a very simple and straightforward question. I would 
encourage the White House and the President to echo what Jay Carney 
said just a couple days ago, which is no one in the White House knew 
anything about it. I think it is important for the President to answer 
that clearly; again, not because I am implying he did know, because I 
think if they leave that out there, it creates questions that should 
not be created. I hope they will do that. It is important.
  I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate and the American 
people a compilation of stories that have emerged since the initial 
question emerged. They are very troubling. They extend, quite frankly, 
beyond the IRS, but I will begin with the IRS. Here is a report from 
the Washington Examiner. The headline reads: ``IRS denied tax-exempt 
status to pro-lifers on behalf of Planned Parenthood.''
  Let me read what it says inside. It says: ``In one case, the IRS 
withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition 
for Life of Iowa.''
  In a phone call that this reporter reported he had with one of the 
leaders--I am sorry. One of the leaders claimed that in a phone call he 
had with the IRS on June 6 of 2009, ``the IRS agent `Ms. Richards' told 
the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board's 
signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/
protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned 
Parenthood.''
  They said that ``once the IRS received this letter, this application 
would be approved.'' That is troubling if true. That is one report that 
is in the news.
  Here is another one. This one comes from a very respected individual 
in the United States. His name is Franklin Graham. He is the son of the 
Reverend Billy Graham. He claims the Billy Graham Evangelical 
Association and the family's international humanitarian organization 
Samaritan's Purse, the IRS notified them in September that it was 
conducting a ``review'' of their activities for tax year 2010.
  He goes on to say, by the way, that this review happened after Mr. 
Graham's organization published newspaper ads in North Carolina backing 
a State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That is in 
the news. That was from Politico. Again, I am just reporting what 
different outlets are reporting.
  This is another report that has been out there. I think I alluded to 
this yesterday in my speech. This talks about how the same IRS office 
that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt 
status in the runup to the 2012 election released nine pending 
confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late 
last year. I think this is actually ProPublica admitting that is where 
they got the information.
  This is in response to a request for the applications for 67 
different nonprofits last November. So this is an admission, basically, 
from ProPublica, which is in this not-for-profit investigative 
reporting group. They are admitting the source of these leaked 
documents was the IRS office in Cincinnati, the leaked documents of 
nine conservative groups.
  So now it is no longer audits, it is cooperating with investigative 
journalists by provided them with information which is illegal to 
provide them, confidential tax information. That is what this report 
says from the organization that got the leak.
  This is FOX News Latino. It reports that the former President of San 
Antonio tea party said they received a questionnaire with over 50 
questions, including inquiries into whom the group met with, where 
their meetings were held, who was in attendance, the subjects of 
internal e-mails, et cetera.
  This is in line with some of the other stories we have been hearing 
around the country. This was actually posted online. These are letters 
going back and forth between the Richmond tea party and the IRS. These 
are the actual online letters we pulled, with some information redacted 
for privacy.
  Some of the questions they were asked: Provide the following 
information for all events and programs you have conducted and 
participated in from October 22 to now.
  They wanted copies of handouts provided to the audience. They wanted 
to know if there were any speeches or forums conducted in the event or 
program, provide detailed contents of the speeches or forums, the names 
of the speakers and panels, their credentials, the names of persons 
from your organization and the amount of time they spent on the event 
or the program. Indicate the percentage of time and resources you spent 
on all of the events and programs in relation to your activity.
  It goes on and on. This is page after page of information being asked 
of a citizen group by the IRS. Anyone who

[[Page 7011]]

has gotten a letter from the IRS understands it is never a pleasant 
circumstance, unless there is a refund check in that envelope. You go 
to the mailbox, open it, it says IRS, and no one likes that.
  Just imagine this group of everyday citizens. These are not 
professional political activists. They do not have entire law firms at 
their disposal. These are just everyday Americans who are speaking out 
about the principles of limited government and free enterprise. By the 
way, if they were speaking out in favor of big government, they still 
have the same right not to be harassed by the IRS.
  So I just want to bring the real face of this to bear, because this 
is not just a problem with an abuse of power in the IRS. Think about 
the impact this has had on the lives of everyday Americans who one day 
decided: I want to get involved in politics. I want to speak out. I 
want to say something. They get hit with a letter such as this, this 
kind of questionnaire, which quite frankly what happens with a lot of 
these people is they decide I am not going to do it. I am not going to 
get involved. I do not have the time for this. I do not need the 
hassle. Maybe that was the intent.
  So we went over that for a moment. Here is something that is very 
troubling. This is from USA Today. The USA Today headline: ``IRS 
approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo.'' Some of those 
groups were approved in as little as 9 months. Bus for Progress in New 
Jersey, a not-for-profit that uses red, white, and blue buses to drive 
progressive change, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, 
they got their tax-exempt status just 9 months after a pretty simple 
and straightforward process.
  Progress Florida in my own home State, similar experience. Again, 
this is USA Today. I think this was their cover story yesterday, where 
it described the difference in how tea party groups are treated, in 
comparison, that had words in their title such as ``progress'' or 
``progressive.''
  Here is one more that actually shows this kind of behavior extends 
beyond the Internal Revenue Service. This is from the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, May 14. It talks about how public records 
produced by EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a 
lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act, show a 
pattern of making it far more difficult for limited government groups, 
in particular those that argue for more freedom and less EPA, how it 
makes it harder for them to get access to public records.
  For example, green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the Sierra Club, the Public Employees for Environmental 
Responsibility, Earth Justice, they had their fees waived in 75 out of 
82 cases.
  Meanwhile, the EPA effectively or expressly denied CEI's request for 
fee waivers in 14 of its 15 requests--14 of its 15 requests. So that is 
93 percent of the time versus basically the alternative, which is what 
they did to these other groups. Again, all a chain in a pattern of 
behavior that I think is not anything any of us ever want to see. So 
far I have not seen it, and I do not think we are going to, quite 
frankly. I suspect we will not see a single Member of Congress come to 
the floor of either Chamber and say this is acceptable behavior.
  I wish to tie in the loop, though, because this is not just about 
these agencies run amok. This is not just about a handful of people in 
the IRS's Cincinnati office or somewhere else doing something wrong. 
This is much deeper than that.
  I talked about it yesterday, I will repeat it today; that is, the 
sense that this administration has pursued a real culture of 
intimidation in the political process, including the way it ran its 
campaign. But I wish to take it one step further. What this should 
remind us of is the danger of government power. Let me stop there and 
remind everyone. We need government. No one here--I do not know any 
anarchists who serve in the U.S. Government, for the most part. All of 
us believe government has an important role to play in our country and 
the national defense. By and large, we believe there needs to be a 
safety net to help those who cannot help themselves, not as a way of 
life but to help those who have fallen to stand and try again.
  We think the government plays an important role in our laws. One of 
the things that attracts people to the United States--for example, to 
do business here--is that we have a legal system where property rights 
are going to be respected. So if one says they own a piece of property, 
it belongs to them. No one would necessarily dispute that. If they do, 
they have to go to court. There are countries in the world where the 
owner of the property is whoever has the bigger guns or whoever has the 
best connection to government. We take that for granted sometimes.
  So there is a role for government to play. It is a very important 
role. But the problem is that our Framers, the Founders of this Nation, 
had a deep suspicion of government no matter who was running the 
government. They rejected this notion that if we get very good people 
in government, we will have very good government.
  Government has a role to play. But when government's powers extend 
beyond its natural limits or its important limits, we start to have 
problems such as these emerge. I bring this to the floor because this 
is exactly what we have been debating in so many instances, is 
expanding the natural power of government beyond where it should be and 
allowing it to have jurisdiction and influence over areas of our life, 
where no matter who is in charge, Republican or Democrat, we may not 
like the way it turns out.
  We talked about the IRS for a moment. The IRS is going to be on the 
frontlines of enforcing the health care law. This is the same agency of 
government that has for the most part over the last few years, now by 
admission of everyone involved, been abusing power--at least some of 
their employees have. I don't want to besmirch the entire agency. As 
Senator Hatch was saying a few minutes ago, there are very good people 
at work all throughout government who would never participate in this 
sort of behavior.
  My point is that this is the agency that was targeting Americans 
because they were organizing themselves as conservatives. This is now 
the agency that is going to be empowered with new powers it has never 
had before--the power to force every American to either buy health 
insurance or pay a fine, buy health insurance or pay a tax.
  In the weeks to come, I am going to be outlining examples of why 
giving government more power than it should have creates situations 
like this--the potential for situations like this to occur. There was 
enormous wisdom in limiting the power of the Federal Government that 
our Framers had, enormous wisdom in that. That is why they specifically 
said: If this Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government this 
power, it doesn't have it. We sometimes forget that lesson from two 
centuries later, but we shouldn't. That is an important limit.
  I think we can have an honest debate about what role government 
should be playing in our lives and in our economy. There could be an 
honest debate about that because there is a role for government to 
play. There is an important role for government to play in our country. 
It can go too far, whether it is in the realm of civil liberties or 
economic liberties. That is what I think the debate should be focused 
on in the weeks to come, in addition to getting to the bottom of what 
has happened here, understanding clearly what has happened here.
  I am involved in another endeavor: immigration reform. One of the 
biggest impediments to immigration reform that I am facing--that we are 
facing--is this distrust of the Federal Government. It is the belief 
that they are not going to enforce the law. No matter what we pass or 
what we put in place, they are not going to do it. We tried this 20 or 
30 years ago, and they didn't do it. That is unfortunate. I hope we can 
overcome that. I believe we can because the truth is that the vast 
majority of Americans--the vast majority of Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents--are willing to deal with the fact that we have 11 million 
people living in

[[Page 7012]]

this country illegally so long as we can ensure that this problem never 
happens again in the future. They are willing to deal with that. We 
have to win their confidence that, in fact, the measures we are going 
to take are going to prevent that from happening in the future. We are 
struggling because people have such a distrust of the government's 
willingness or ability to enforce the law. You see it, even in that 
issue, rear its head.
  I think it is important to remind ourselves that even if government 
is run by the best people with the best of intentions, it has a 
tendency to do these sorts of things. You see that at every level but 
particularly at the Federal level where there are such enormous powers.
  Anytime we come here and debate giving government a new power, a new 
agency, a new mandate, or a new jurisdiction, we should be cognizant of 
the history of government power. We should be cognizant of what it has 
meant throughout human history. We should remember why the Framers 
limited that power to begin with--because they understood that power 
could be abused.
  In the weeks to come, I know that I, along with all my colleagues, 
want to get to the bottom of this. We want to understand from the IRS' 
perspective who was involved in doing this, why this happened, and, 
more importantly, what we can do now to make sure this never, ever 
happens again, what we can do now to ensure that not just in the IRS 
but across the government that a situation like this never happens 
again so that no matter what your political persuasion may be, no 
American ever feels afraid to speak out politically because they may 
wind up the target of governmental action.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________