[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3392-3403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1430
       STOP TARGETING OF POLITICAL BELIEFS BY THE IRS ACT OF 2014

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 487, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3865) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from 
modifying the standard for determining whether an organization is 
operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes 
of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 487, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted. 
The bill, as amended, is considered read.

[[Page 3393]]

  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3865

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Targeting of Political 
     Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR DETERMINATIONS OF WHETHER AN 
                   ORGANIZATION IS OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE 
                   PROMOTION OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

       (a) In General.--The standard and definitions as in effect 
     on January 1, 2010, which are used to determine whether an 
     organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of 
     social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply for purposes of 
     determining the status of organizations under section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Modification of Standard.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury may not issue, revise, or finalize any 
     regulation (including the proposed regulations published at 
     78 Fed. Reg. 71535 (November 29, 2013)), revenue ruling, or 
     other guidance not limited to a particular taxpayer relating 
     to the standard and definitions specified in subsection (a).
       (c) Application to Organizations.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), this section shall apply with respect to any 
     organization claiming tax exempt status under section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which was 
     created on, before, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after the one-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Targeting of Political 
     Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR DETERMINATIONS OF WHETHER AN 
                   ORGANIZATION IS OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE 
                   PROMOTION OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

       (a) In General.--The standard and definitions as in effect 
     on January 1, 2010, which are used to determine whether an 
     organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of 
     social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply for purposes of 
     determining the status of organizations under section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Modification of Standard.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury may not (nor may any delegate of such 
     Secretary) issue, revise, or finalize any regulation 
     (including the proposed regulations published at 78 Fed. Reg. 
     71535 (November 29, 2013)), revenue ruling, or other guidance 
     not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to the standard 
     and definitions specified in subsection (a).
       (c) Application to Organizations.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), this section shall apply with respect to any 
     organization claiming tax exempt status under section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which was 
     created on, before, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after the one-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3865.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting 
of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014, to stop the IRS and 
Treasury from restricting free speech activities of social welfare 
organizations that have been in place for over 50 years.
  Last May, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative groups 
seeking tax-exempt status. For over 9 months, committee investigators 
have reviewed hundreds of thousands of internal IRS documents and 
interviewed IRS officials regarding the targeting. Our investigation is 
not yet over, and the Ways and Means Committee continues to wait for 
the IRS to turn over Lois Lerner's emails. Despite the ongoing 
investigations both in Congress and by the inspector general, last 
November Treasury rushed forward with proposed new regulations to 
stifle 501(c)(4) groups, upending rules that have been in place for 
over half a century.
  Under the proposed rule, social welfare organizations would face 
additional, unprecedented scrutiny for engaging in the most basic 
nonpartisan political activity, such as organizing nonpartisan get-out-
the-vote drives, registering voters, or hosting candidate forums in 
their neighborhood. If the Treasury Department and the IRS have their 
way, these sorts of activities would jeopardize the tax-exempt status 
of social welfare organizations.
  Making matters worse, the administration is pushing the proposed rule 
based on a false premise. Treasury issued these rules under the premise 
of ``considerable confusion'' in the tax-exempt application process. 
They use the term considerable confusion to justify their actions. 
However, the committee's investigation has found no evidence that 
confusion caused the IRS to systematically target conservative groups. 
In fact, we found evidence to the contrary, that IRS workers in 
Cincinnati flagged Tea Party cases for Washington, D.C., because of 
``media attention.'' Before Washington got involved, front-line IRS 
employees were already processing and approving Tea Party applications 
with no intrusive questionnaires or signs of confusion.
  In addition to being based on a false premise, the proposed rule was 
drafted in secrecy and long before the administration's proclaimed need 
for clarity. Our investigation has discovered that Treasury and the IRS 
were working on these new rules behind closed doors for years--well 
before the targeting came to light.
  While the administration claims that the proposed rule is a response 
to the inspector general's audit report, IRS employees told committee 
staff in transcribed interviews that discussions about the rule started 
much earlier, in the spring of 2011. Further, a June 2012 email between 
Treasury officials and then-IRS director of tax exempt organizations, 
Lois Lerner, shows that these potential regulations were being 
discussed off plan--meaning that the plans for the regulations were to 
be discussed behind closed doors. This type of behavior raises serious 
questions about the integrity of the rulemaking process and counsels 
for putting a hold on the draft rules.
  The intent of the rules proposed by the Obama administration is 
clear: to legalize the IRS' inappropriate targeting of conservative 
groups. These proposed rules severely limit groups' rights to engage in 
public debate by labeling activities such as candidate forums, get-out-
the-vote efforts, and voter registration as ``political activity'' for 
501(c)(4) groups. However, 501(c)(3)'s--which are not allowed to engage 
in my political activity--and labor unions are free to continue to 
engage in these activities without limitation.
  It is clear that the American people are also concerned that these 
proposed rules would squash their First Amendment rights. Treasury has 
received over 94,000 comments on the rule so far, which is the most 
they have ever received on any rule ever. Given the American public's 
significant interest in the proposed rules, it is imperative that 
Treasury put a hold on them until the investigations into the targeting 
are complete so that all the facts are known and the public has ample 
opportunity to be heard.
  This legislation will ensure that Treasury does not rush this rule 
into effect this year, allows the ongoing investigations to issue 
findings on the targeting, helps us to stop the IRS' targeting of 
taxpayers based on their personal beliefs, and is a commonsense step to 
preserve these groups' ability to engage in public debate.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 3394]]

  On a day when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, 
is unveiling a tax measure that requires serious bipartisanship to be 
successful, we are here on the floor considering a totally political 
bill in an attempt to resurrect an alleged scandal that never existed.
  Was there incompetence at the IRS in the processing of 501(c)(4) 
applications?
  Yes--and I was among the very first who said that those in 
supervision should be held accountable.
  Was there corruption, political interference, White House 
involvement, an enemies list, as the Republicans have claimed since day 
one?
  Absolutely not; no evidence whatsoever.
  Yesterday, the IRS Commissioner confirmed that $8 million has been 
spent directly on those investigations as over 255 people have spent 
over 79,000 hours doing nothing but responding to congressional 
investigations. An additional $6 million to $8 million has been spent 
to add capacity to information technology systems to process securely 
the 500,000 pages of documents Congress has received.
  What have they learned? That both progressive and conservative groups 
were inappropriately screened out by name and not activity, and that no 
one was involved in this outside of the IRS, and that there was no 
political motivation involved.
  When the inspector general asked his chief investigator to look into 
the possibility of political motivation by the IRS, that investigator 
concluded:

       There was no indication that pulling these selected 
     applications was politically motivated. The email traffic 
     indicated there were unclear processing directions and the 
     group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the 
     applications so they pulled them. This is a very important 
     nuance.

  Indeed, it is, and it is precisely that lack of clarity that the IRS 
was responding to in proposing new regulations for 501(c)(4) 
organizations. New regulations that are designed to bring certainty in 
determining whether an organization's primary activities are political.
  The regulations are among several steps the IG himself recommended in 
his audit report that the IRS undertake, each of which the Republicans 
repeatedly called for action on.
  In a June 3, 2013, hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, 
Chairman Crenshaw told Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel:

       We're going to insist that the IRS implement all nine of 
     the recommendations in the inspector general's report.

  A Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam, has 
a bill to implement all of the inspector general's recommendations, 
including implementing new 501(c)(4) regulations.
  Why is this important? Because applications for 501(c)(4) status have 
nearly doubled between 2010 and 2012--to 3,357, and spending has 
skyrocketed.
  In 2006, $1 million was spent by (c)(4) organizations. In 2010, $92 
million was spent. In 2012, $256 million has been spent by (c)(4) 
organizations.
  The (c)(4) designation presently allows organizations to keep their 
donors secret, hidden as to which individuals contributed, and that is 
exactly the secrecy that the Republicans are trying to preserve.
  Why? Because the three largest spenders, representing fully 51 
percent of the total, are a Who's Who list of Republican political 
operatives.

                              {time}  1445

  It is indicated here: Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove, $71 million; 
Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, $36 million; and the 
American Future Fund, the Koch brothers again, $25 million. That is 
$132 million of the skyrocketing $256 million that the Federal Election 
Commission had reported to it, according to the Center for Responsive 
Politics.
  If you live in a targeted State and you turn on your television, you 
have probably seen these groups at work distorting the Affordable Care 
Act.
  That is why we are here today, purely and simply, not because 
Republicans want to stand up for the rights of social welfare 
organizations--and they often talk about small ones--but to preserve 
the secrecy around the Republicans' big campaign efforts.
  These are draft regulations that the Republicans themselves called 
for. Over 76,000 comments--and I think now more--have been received, 
and the comment period does not close until Friday.
  These regulations aren't likely to come out this year anyway with all 
these comments, so why this bill? Why this bill? It is very, very 
clear, and it is very simple. There is a problem with 501(c)(4)'s. The 
three organizations that I mentioned that are involved as political 
operatives, in one form or another, these are people who have donors 
nobody knows. This is secret money.
  Why are we standing here and saying to the IRS: Don't look at 
502(c)(4)'s; don't look at the possible massive abuse; don't look at 
what has happened in the last few years where political operatives, 
under the guise of 501(c)(4), have moved from $1 million in many cases 
to $256 million reported to the FEC?
  Our constituents, Democrats and Republicans, are offering their 
comments. Some of them I agree with and they deserve to be read, but 
not to be shredded at the hands of a November campaign strategy by the 
Republican Party of this country and by the Republican Conference of 
this House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) control the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to take a moment just to respond to some of the comments that 
my friend on the other side made.
  First of all, there are three ongoing investigations that are 
incomplete. There is the congressional investigation being conducted by 
multiple committees, incomplete; there is the inspector general 
investigation, still incomplete and ongoing; and there is a third, a 
criminal investigation.
  I ask, first off, the question: Why start regulating now when we 
don't have all the information? Let's let all this go to conclusion and 
then institute the proper reforms.
  I want to point out that in its report on targeting, the inspector 
general recommended the Treasury and the IRS provide guidance on how to 
measure political activity--not what constitutes political activity, 
how to measure it.
  The proposed rule has been in development since 2011. Internal IRS 
emails between Treasury and IRS show that they were developing the rule 
off plan--off plan. That means beyond the sunshine of disclosure and 
out in the open--off plan. What do they have to hide? Why are they 
doing this? And this is actually before all the allegations came out.
  Then, when asked at the markup of H.R. 3865--this legislation--
whether the proposed rule answers the inspector general's 
recommendation for the IRS and Treasury to provide guidance on 
measuring political activity, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, nonpartisan, said: The proposed rule does 
not address the measurement issue.
  All we are seeking to do is to delay the implementation of this rule 
until we complete the investigation and we have all the facts, and then 
we can talk about what necessary reforms should be implemented.
  But I think it is a bit premature to start putting forth regulations 
that will infringe on First Amendment rights. It is a very blunt 
instrument and a very dangerous path to embark upon at this point in 
time.
  With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my friend, a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the piece of legislation we are talking about.
  I think it is rather chilling that 223 years ago, our First Amendment 
rights

[[Page 3395]]

were enshrined in our Bill of Rights. We have all taken the same oath. 
We said, to the best of our ability, we preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. I am hearing now dollar signs or 
dollar numbers being there saying, well, we can't afford to spend this 
kind of money.
  Never before in America were we ever worried about the cost of money 
when it comes to defending our freedoms and liberties under our 
Constitution and our Bill of Rights. It has no dollar attached to it. 
It is basically fundamentally American.
  When we talk about American citizens not being able to talk that 
way--the First Amendment, by the way, protects us and enshrines us, 45 
words in the First Amendment that protect and enshrine our rights.
  This is not a political issue. This is not about an ``R'' or a ``D.'' 
This is about a ``we.'' This is about the entire country. If we are 
going to sit here and say: Oh, no, this just has to do with an 
election--an election--really, an election?--we cannot allow the voice 
of the people not to be heard in our town squares. When they need to 
speak out, they need to know that they can speak out without being 
threatened or without being worried about what is going to happen to 
them.
  This is so basically who we are as Americans. It has nothing to do 
with Republicans and Democrats, Independents and Libertarians. It has 
to do with who we are. If we cannot see that and we turn this into a 
political agenda and talking points, then, my gosh, how far we have 
fallen from what the Founders intended at the very beginning.
  We cannot have this debate in seriousness and say we are spending too 
much money to protect the rights of our American citizens. That is 
absolutely foolish.
  I am very, very strong on the protection of what we are talking 
about. H.R. 3865 reconfirms what the American people need to know. They 
can speak out on anything, anytime, anywhere they want, without having 
to be worried about anybody interfering with it, especially a 
government.
  This is a government that serves the people; this is not a people 
that serve our government. And to think that we have to have a piece of 
legislation in addition to our First Amendment rights on the floor is 
absolutely so different than what we think.
  Again, the voice of the American people has got to be heard. I don't 
care--conservative, liberal, I don't care where you are coming from. 
You have the right to speak out anytime you want.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides, for housekeeping purposes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 22 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the outrage and the innuendos from my 
Republican colleagues and their chief mouthpiece, FOX News. The facts 
should show this is phony, a phony investigation against President 
Obama launched for political purposes: facts like the person who began 
these investigations was a self-described conservative Republican; 
facts like more than 500,000 pages of documents have been provided to 
Congress, and there is no smoking gun; facts like, of the five dozen 
interviews of IRS employees at 15 congressional hearings, that nothing 
was found.
  These are the facts, but I realize some will choose to not believe 
the facts versus fiction. Let me provide some basic commonsense 
information.
  The inspector general who oversees the IRS, someone who was appointed 
by then-President George W. Bush--someone who has admitted that he 
covered up political targeting of progressive groups in his report to 
Congress; someone who had a number of private meetings with the 
Republican chair of the Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, and then 
came out to issue public statements as facts--this someone, J. Russell 
George, has testified under oath that he notified Congressman Darrell 
Issa of his investigation into the IRS in the summer of 2012.
  Do you know what else was happening in the summer of 2012? A very 
close Presidential election.
  Does anyone honestly think, if there was an actual scandal or an 
actual targeting of just Tea Party groups by the administration in the 
months and the weeks leading up to the 2012 elections when Barack Obama 
was going to the ballot, that Congressman Darrell Issa wouldn't blow 
the whistle and expose it when he was notified that an investigation 
was ongoing and occurring?
  It just doesn't pass the laugh test. This is another phony scam in 
the realm of phony scams my Republican colleagues make up to go after 
Democratic Presidents.
  But what is also interesting is that, just as the Republicans 
continue their crusade to discredit the IRS, the Republicans have 
rallied around their version of tax reform--I have a copy of the 
summation right here; this is just the summation--a radical version 
that will empower--empower--the IRS. This legislation that they are 
offering today will empower the IRS and raise taxes on families while 
cutting them for multinational corporations.
  For the past several years, the public has been told that the 
Republicans would try to rip the Tax Code out from its roots and that 
it would be rewritten by Democrats and Republicans together.
  Well, guess what. Democrats were never once invited to help draft, 
draft this bill. Speaker Boehner even dismissed Democratic criticism of 
the process by saying, ``Blah, blah, blah.''
  So what is the result? A radical Republican tax plan that will, if 
enacted, end the tax break for families to deduct their State and local 
income taxes that they already paid in taxes to the States and local 
governments. It will slash the mortgage interest deduction for 
homeowners. It will create a new tax on Social Security. It will tax 
workers for the health care offered by their employer. It will increase 
taxes on hundreds of thousands of our military families. It will 
institute the chained CPI to raise taxes, and it is also known to 
reduce veterans' and Social Security benefit checks.
  This really does beg the question: Whose side are our Republican 
colleagues on? They try to look populist by creating false and fake 
scandals and bashing the IRS, but in reality, their words and actions 
mask their bill to empower the IRS and radically redesign the Tax Code, 
making families pay more so international corporations can pay less.
  That is the real scandal here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate tax reform, but it is obvious to 
me that the gentleman hasn't read the bill yet, and I think you should 
read the bill before you debate tax reform. That will come on another 
day.
  But I want to get back to why we are here today. I want to point out 
that this is a bipartisan IRS investigation by Congress. I want to also 
point out, in that regard, that the Ways and Means Committee document 
requests are bipartisan joint requests from Chairman Camp and Ranking 
Member Levin. Ranking Member Levin also admits that the investigation 
is incomplete.
  So we have to get down to the bottom of this and let this 
investigation be done. The American people deserve to know what the 
truth is before we start issuing new law or having new regulations 
issued by the executive branch which will have the chilling effect of 
infringing on First Amendment rights.
  One of the previous speakers on the other side mentioned the IRS 
spending money and manpower on this investigation. Yes, the IRS also 
spent $40 million on conferences over the period of the targeting.

                              {time}  1500

  One conference alone cost $4.1 million--waste. In 2012, the IRS spent 
$21.6

[[Page 3396]]

million on union activity--taxpayer dollars on union activity. Explain 
that to the taxpayer. The IRS also spends about $5 million annually on 
its full-service production studio in New Carrollton, Maryland.
  The fact of the matter is that the American people are tired of the 
waste. They are tired, and they are also very concerned about the 
infringement on their First Amendment rights.
  With that, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3865, the 
Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act.
  Last year, northeast Ohioans and Americans across the country were 
deeply troubled to learn the IRS abused its power by targeting 
conservative groups. Many in Ohio's 16th District, my district, 
contacted my office to express grave concerns about the lack of 
accountability and transparency within the IRS. Not only did the 
Federal agency violate the public trust, but it infringed on our First 
Amendment rights.
  The Ways and Means Committee began investigating allegations of 
potential political discrimination within the IRS nearly 3 years ago. 
What was discovered is disturbing. The committee found evidence that 
conservative groups were targeted to an extent far beyond what was 
initially reported. As part of its ongoing investigation, the committee 
requested and reviewed hundreds of thousands of internal IRS documents, 
and it interviewed dozens of its employees.
  Recently, the IRS published draft rules that would essentially 
authorize the continued targeting of political groups. These rules 
represent a disregard for liberties outlined in our Constitution, and 
they demonstrate the dangers of a growing Federal Government. The IRS' 
actions bring to light just how rampant abuse is within this 
administration. The American people will not tolerate it, and neither 
will Congress.
  This legislation is commonsense. It would require the IRS to halt 
this rulemaking process until the committee completes its 
investigation. It is critical that the committee gathers all the facts 
before the IRS implements these rules, which were created behind closed 
doors. That is not political. That is just common sense. There should 
be no controversy at all.
  This legislation builds upon a bill I introduced last year which 
would specifically spell out that any IRS employee, regardless of 
political affiliation, who targeted a taxpayer for political purposes 
could be immediately relieved of his duties. It passed the House with 
broad bipartisan support.
  This is not a partisan issue. Whether you are a Republican, a 
Democrat or an Independent, above all, we are Americans. Targeting 
anyone based on any affiliation goes against the very principles this 
country was founded upon. Americans of all political beliefs deserve to 
know that they will not be targeted by their government for political 
purposes.
  I thank Chairman Camp for his hard work on this important 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from 
Ohio that this tax bill, know as the Tax Reform Act of 2014, which was 
made public today, will be a sucker punch to the guts of families who 
live in higher tax States, like Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, New 
York, and Ohio. All of these States have representation from the 
Republican Party on the Ways and Means Committee. They helped to draft 
this legislation. The question is: Whose side are they on?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are back in the theater of the 
absurd. The Republicans are wasting valuable time and resources on 
political theater, crafted to make the producers at FOX television 
happy while they should be moving forward with the country's business.
  There have been six separate investigations. Not a single shred of 
evidence has been found demonstrating political motivation or White 
House involvement in the IRS grouping of the tea party applications by 
name. Now, one of my colleagues is a physician. He is from Louisiana. 
He has operated many times. You do not begin surgery until you know 
what is going on with the patient. We have six investigations which 
found no reason to operate, no reason to pass this legislation. Yet 
here it is. Ironically, the real trickery of this is this bill. It is 
designed to protect Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brothers of 
Houston from exposing where the money that they put into the political 
process is being used.
  Everyone knows what a 501(c)(4) is about. You give the money to the 
organizations. They don't have to report your name to anyone, and then 
the organizations can use it any way they want. Now, if an organization 
goes to the IRS and says, ``we want a 501(c)(4),'' the IRS should ask a 
few questions, don't you think, if they are going to give an exemption 
from the American people, from those people paying the taxes who put it 
in there? Karl Rove and all of his cohorts ought to pay taxes if they 
are going to use it for the political process, and it is the IRS' job 
to find that out. It is the same with liberal groups. Any group that 
comes in has to explain what it is going to do with the money.
  We have had six investigations, but now we have a bill without any 
conclusion from any committee or any investigation that there is a 
problem. The floor of the House should not be the stage for the 
Republicans to work out their November election strategy and funding. 
If Republicans really want to work on behalf of the American people, 
they should get serious and roll up their sleeves. The production tax 
credit ought to pass out of here as a unanimous consent. There are a 
thousand things that ought to be happening here today instead of this 
silly bill, which will have no effect. It is not going through the 
Senate. The President isn't going to sign it. It is simply political 
theater to give the directors at FOX TV things to put on television.
  If you intend to do something real, you can, but this bill is not 
real. It is simply to reignite the baseless allegations against the 
White House.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stop Targeting of 
Political Beliefs by the IRS Act.
  Political speech was considered by our Founders to be deserving of 
the utmost protection. The First Amendment they wrote is no less 
crucial to our democracy today than it was in those initial days. Since 
those days, Americans have come up with all sorts of ways to exercise 
their fundamental free speech rights, including assembling together in 
organizations to express their thoughts about what their government is 
doing.
  These groups, including those known as 501(c)(4) organizations, are 
an important part of our democracy. Many of these groups are formed to 
specifically engage and educate our citizenry through candidate forums, 
debates, grassroots lobbying, voter registration, and other activities 
to promote the common good so America has an informed public.
  For over 50 years, these organizations have been eligible to apply 
for tax-exempt status, but now, Mr. Speaker, that status is under 
threat from new regulations being proposed by the IRS. The goal here is 
clear. These regulations were reverse engineered in order to directly 
silence political opponents of this administration's.
  That is the worst kind of government abuse. Silencing your critics is 
commonplace in authoritarian countries, not in the United States of 
America. Frankly, it is a cowardly act to silence people via backroom 
regulations. Those who disagree with any administration's policies, 
whether conservative or liberal, still deserve the constitutional 
protections afforded to them. This kind of government abuse must stop, 
and it must stop now.

[[Page 3397]]

  Today, we have an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner because 
this bill prevents these costly regulations from taking effect on 
groups that promote issues both sides of the aisle deeply care about. 
Nearly 70,000 comments have been submitted about this proposed 
regulation from both sides or all sides of the ideological spectrum. 
The majority of those submissions are negative.
  Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union submitted a 26-page 
comment to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, stating:

       Social welfare organizations praise or criticize candidates 
     for public office on the issues, and they should be able to 
     do so freely, without fear of losing or being denied tax-
     exempt status, even if doing so could influence a citizen's 
     vote.

  The ACLU continued, stating that the advocacy work done by these 
groups is ``the heart of our representative democracy.''
  The ACLU and so many others who have also spoken out in opposition to 
this proposed regulation are absolutely right. Political speech 
represents the best part of America, the ability for Americans to be 
able to reach out to their elected representatives and let them know 
when they agree or disagree with them.
  No matter which side of the aisle we are on, Mr. Speaker, we must 
protect that fundamental freedom. So let us stand together today and 
pass this bill so that Americans, whether individually or collectively, 
can continue to strengthen our political process without fear of 
retribution.
  I would like to thank Chairman Camp as well as subcommittee Chairman 
Boustany on the Ways and Means Committee and all of those across our 
country who have spoken out on this issue, and I ask my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. The only threat, Mr. Speaker, to the freedoms of 
Americans is not the bill we are discussing on the floor today but the 
bill that was announced this afternoon, the Tax Reform Act of 2014--the 
freedom of Americans to purchase their first homes, the freedom of 
Americans not to have attacks placed on their health care. Those are 
the types of freedoms that are being threatened today.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to describe this bill is to call it 
the ``prevent secret money from disclosure act,'' because that is what 
we are really talking about.
  What matters today to most Americans? If you talk to folks back home 
or on the street, they will tell you: Are you working on making sure 
the private sector is creating jobs? Does this bill help create jobs? 
No. They will say: Then at least make sure, if I am paying taxes, you 
are using them the right way. Does this bill help taxpayers save money? 
No.
  So why are we doing this?
  You are hearing folks talk about the Constitution. The Constitution 
doesn't guarantee campaign donors get special tax treatment or 
protections. The First Amendment protects speech, not secret 
contributions.
  So what is the problem?
  The problem is that the IRS has finally figured out that a whole 
bunch of folks are funneling a lot of dark, secret money into 
organizations that under the Tax Code are permitted and that they are 
using this to influence our American campaigns.
  We have no idea who is making these contributions of millions of 
dollars--secret dollars--to influence campaigns here in America. Is it 
foreign governments giving these millions of dollars? We don't know. Is 
it money launderers trying to influence elections? We don't know. We 
have no idea who is giving this money because, under the Tax Code under 
which these organizations are filing, they have no obligation to 
disclose who has given them one red cent.
  That Tax Code section, 501(c)(4), is very similar to the 501(c)(3), 
the charitable organization we are very familiar with. 501(c)(4)s are 
classified as ``social welfare organizations.'' Guess what? Do you know 
how much those social welfare organizations spent doing campaign and 
political work in our elections? How much do you think the political 
campaigns spent, the Republican National Committee and the Democratic 
National Committee combined? $255 million in the 2012 election. That is 
what the two political parties spent together. How much did social 
welfare organizations spend on campaign and political activity? More 
than the two political parties combined--$256 million. Can you tell me 
where one penny came from? No, you can't, because it is all secret 
money.
  What are the proponents of this bill trying to do? They are trying to 
hide the names of those who gave the money. Why? We don't know.

                              {time}  1515

  But it sure would be nice to know who is getting all this money, when 
just 8 years ago, those same social welfare organizations gave a total 
of $1 million for political purposes. It was $256 million in 2012. 
Eight years ago, it was $1 million.
  Something is going on in America. Someone is trying to buy elections. 
And we can't figure it out because those donors don't have to be 
disclosed. It is time to make sure that those donations are disclosed. 
That is all the IRS is trying to do.
  It is cloaked as something different by proponents of this bill. 
Let's not hide the money. It is time to disclose those contractors.
  Vote down this bill.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is no denying that we may need reforms in this. There has been 
a lot of debate about this. The gentleman from California and I have 
had those kinds of conversations. But I would point out that the 
investigations are not complete, and they need to be complete.
  The ranking member mentioned earlier in his comments money and donors 
as reasons for this rule, but neither the word ``donor,'' ``money,'' or 
``contributions'' appears in the regulation.
  It has been cited by the former Commissioner of the IRS that there 
was confusion. A confusion narrative emerged, but it was on the basis 
of no internal investigation at the IRS. There has been no interview of 
the employees, no facts established. We are still doing this 
investigation, from our standpoint, as is the inspector general.
  We know from our investigation so far, having interviews with the 
Cincinnati employees, that they were not confused by the rules. They 
were processing the applications until interference came down from 
Washington, from higher up in the Exempt Organizations Division of the 
IRS. Employees then flagged Tea Party applications and others because 
of what they said were ``media interest,'' not confusion. Within 24 
hours of the flagging for media interest, these Washington, D.C., 
officials at the IRS requested Tea Party applications.
  Unlike the IRS, the Committee on Ways and Means has been 
investigating this matter, and we have not completed this 
investigation. But committee investigators have interviewed nearly 
three dozen IRS officials, from frontline screeners to the former 
commissioner. We have reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents. It 
is nearing completion, but this investigation is being held up.
  A central figure in this investigation is Lois Lerner. We have not 
gotten the information that we have requested from Lois Lerner. We have 
put the newly confirmed Commissioner on notice that if he wants to move 
forward with reforms and do all the things he wants to do during his 
tenure at IRS, we have got to get this investigation done. We have to 
get the facts on the table, and this IRS has to come clean before the 
American people.
  This agency occupies a central part of every single American's life. 
It affects every one of us. This agency has the power to destroy each 
and every one of us. And that is why the trust and the integrity needs 
to be restored.
  All this rule does is shuts down speech. It does nothing that these 
gentlemen, our friends on the other side of

[[Page 3398]]

the aisle, have mentioned in terms of reforms and cleaning up the 
election system and all that. No, it does none of that. It just simply 
stifles speech. I don't think that is appropriate.
  We owe it to the American people and we owe it to the integrity of 
this institution to complete this investigation, put the facts on the 
table, and follow these facts wherever they may lead. This is not 
political. This is simply looking at the facts.
  Rather than a recently drafted cure for confusion, this proposed 
rule, like I said, simply focuses to silence some of these small 
groups, silence conservatives.
  As early as 2011, long before the inspector general audit, IRS 
officials in Washington, D.C., began talking about the proposed rule. 
We have email from Treasury to IRS, off plan--off plan. Now we are 
trying to get more of those emails because we want to know what they 
mean by ``off plan.'' What was really discussed and why was all this 
talked about before the allegations even came forward from these 
various groups?
  This is not right. We need to get to the bottom of it. And rather 
than curing confusion, the proposed rule would simply silence these 
social welfare organizations and have a disproportionate effect on some 
of these right-leaning conservative groups that were subject, in the 
first place, to the targeting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My good friend from Louisiana would continue to have you believe that 
only right-wing and conservative groups were being investigated when in 
fact he knows and we know that it went well beyond that. There were 
progressive groups who were also subject to this investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to my friend from Louisiana, he 
mentioned that maybe members of the Democratic Caucus had not yet 
perused the Republican Tax Reform Act of 2014. I would just point out 
for the record that I am assuming he read the proposed regulations. He 
mentioned that money was not mentioned, when in fact on the first page, 
in the fourth standout:

       Contributions of money or anything of value to, or 
     solicitation of contributions on behalf of, a candidate, 
     political organization, or any other section 501(c) 
     organization engaged in candidate-related political activity.

  So money is mentioned on the first page, just to set the record 
straight, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican radical tax plan will, for the first 
time, tax workers for their health insurance benefits that they are 
provided through their job and tax previously untaxed Social Security 
income. The question, again, is: Whose side are they on?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Bill Pascrell, my friend.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely have the greatest respect for 
the good doctor. I think he is a reasonable man and a good person, but 
when you are explaining, you are losing.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
  After we learned last year about the inexcusable way the IRS 
evaluated applications for tax-exempt status--because that is what is 
at the heart of this issue--I was hopeful that we could have a 
bipartisan response. After all, it was not only conservative groups, as 
you have heard, that had their applications singled out solely because 
of words like ``Tea Party.'' No one is denying that. Progressive groups 
were inappropriately filtered as well. My Democratic colleagues and I 
were equally outraged by this behavior. We put it on the record. But 
those hopes faded quickly when it became apparent that my colleagues on 
the other side weren't actually interested in investigating this 
wrongdoing and fixing the problems.
  This bill is just the latest example of how, instead, they are only 
concerned with scoring cheap political points. Where I am from in 
Paterson, New Jersey, we would call this Pyrrhic sophistry. That is 
what we would call it. Empty arguments, deceitful. That is what that 
means.
  The examples the Republican leader pointed out could be under section 
527. But if you are under 527, you need to disclose where the money 
came from. So you choose not to be under section 527 of the Tax Code. 
You would rather be in another section. And what is that other section? 
You are not tax liable and you don't have to disclose who gave you the 
money.
  What is this? Russia? China?
  You heard the numbers. We are talking about billions of dollars. The 
difference? They would have to disclose where the money came from.
  No evidence of any retribution has been found yet within either 
political party. So this is really a witch hunt. For the American 
people, unfortunately, it is the integrity of our electoral process 
here that is on trial.
  The fact is that the Supreme Court's rulings have legalized a torrent 
of hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate spending that has 
infected our elections.
  We ask again today, join us in correcting that decision by the 
Supreme Court. It has infected our legal process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. One of the most egregious newly legal big spenders are 
organizations operating as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups. They could 
easily be under section 527. We created a special section of the Tax 
Code precisely for tax-exempt political groups. No, they don't want to 
go under those groups, because if they go under those groups, they have 
got to tell us who is contributing to them.
  This is absolutely chicanery. These regulations aren't some wild-
eyed, down-the-rabbit-hole conspiracy theory to prosecute the 
President's political enemies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. PASCRELL. They are simply about preserving congressional intent 
and providing clear rules of the road, both for tax-exempt groups and 
the IRS, about what exactly is political activity so they know what is 
permissible under the law.
  This isn't about free speech. This isn't about being a Tea Party or a 
Progressive. Spend all the money you want to say whatever you want 
about any election. Just don't expect to be able to do so while calling 
yourself a tax-exempt social welfare group.
  We are paying more taxes because these people are getting away with 
it. That is the bottom line. And you, I know, Doctor, are totally 
against that, because you would not really, in the final analysis, 
prefer that some groups are better than others--those particularly who 
don't tell us who donated to the group.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the Nation Magazine, Nan Aron of the liberal judicial lobby, the 
Alliance for Justice, writes:

       501(c)(4)'s are made up of over 86,000 mostly small 
     organizations nationwide that are active participants in 
     civic life.

  They were not invented in the last election cycle. They have been 
around for generations. Their purpose isn't to hide donors. It is to 
advance policies.
  Ms. Aron also adds:

       These groups were involved in elections because it is often 
     impossible to advance a policy cause without being involved 
     in the political process.

  This is from the liberal side of the political spectrum.
  I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, 
Todd Young, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 
leadership on this issue.

[[Page 3399]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this is an essential issue that 
affects groups in my home State of Indiana, as well as groups 
throughout the country.
  As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have been present 
during hearings where we have learned that the IRS targeted 
conservative and Tea Party groups. During those same hearings, I have 
shared letters and documents that showed some of the targeted 
conservative groups were my fellow Hoosiers.
  Regretfully, it appears that the IRS, rather than holding those 
responsible for this targeted sort of activity, is seeking to make 
political targeting part of their standard operating procedure. The 
recently proposed IRS regulation that pertains to these 501(c)(4) 
groups is designed to do so in a way that clearly inhibits their First 
Amendment activities.
  501(c)(4) is the section of our Tax Code that many of the 
conservative groups tried to file under. They can't file as a 501(c)(3) 
because that would limit their ability to engage in grassroots 
lobbying. They can't file as a 501(c)(5) because they aren't a labor 
union. They can't file as a 501(c)(6) because they aren't a chamber of 
commerce. They can't file as a 527 because that would limit them only 
to political activity.
  None of these other organizations are affected by the new 
regulations--only 501(c)(4)'s.
  Now, this seems curious to me, and the regulation seems aimed at 
preventing such groups from engaging in civil discourse. This is why I 
strongly support H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs, or 
STOP, Act.
  This bill doesn't say that the IRS cannot regulate this issue, or 
even that they should not regulate this issue.

                              {time}  1530

  Instead, it just tells them to wait until the investigation into this 
targeting concludes before discussing whether any changes to the rules 
are necessary.
  It is eminently reasonable. It would help protect the political 
speech and the civil rights of my constituents and those around the 
country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), our friend on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing worse than gridlock, 
according to my predecessor, Congressman Henry Hyde. The worst thing 
than gridlock is the greased chute of government.
  It is ironic that the very administration that jammed through the 
Affordable Care Act, also known in the vernacular as ObamaCare, the 
very group that foisted that on the American public in the middle of 
the night, without much oversight, without much discussion, just jammed 
it all through, now has a new remedy as it relates to this newest 
problem, and that is, do it again. Do it again on another issue.
  We heard our friend from New Jersey posing a question, and he is 
misinformed. The nature of his question was somehow that the American 
public is paying for this, and yet, we had testimony that Mr. Camp, the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, asked this question of Mr. 
Barthold, who is the chief of staff for the Joint Committee on 
Taxation.
  He asked this question--this is Dave Camp, chairman of the committee:

       Do these proposed regulations respond to some kind of 
     revenue loss or some kind of tax avoidance scheme?
       Answer: Not that I am aware of, sir. These organizations 
     are generally exempt, and a revenue loss has not been 
     identified as the basis of these proposed regulations.

  So let's not kid ourselves. Here is the reality. The reality is that 
this stifles speech. This is from an administration that has been 
complicit in overseeing an Internal Revenue Service that has picked 
winners and losers, Mr. Speaker, has been able to say you get to 
participate in the public debate and you don't.
  We ought not do this. There have been over 100,000 comments on this 
proposed regulation. For those that want to participate and offer their 
own comment, Mr. Speaker, they can go to roskam.house.gov/
dontbesilenced to make sure that their voice is heard as well offering 
an official comment on this.
  One thing we do know: we know that an administration which has a 
tendency to over-respond, we know that an administration that has not 
much credibility, frankly, on being thoughtful and nimble as it comes 
to legislation, is not the administration that we should trust at this 
point in time with a rule of such incredible consequence when they have 
demonstrated no capacity to do right things in the past.
  I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, Federal law 
states that social welfare groups must exclusively promote social 
welfare. Social welfare includes activities like early childhood 
education, environmental protection, or veterans' assistance, not 
partisan political campaign activity.
  Now, there is an important book on the House floor, and it is a 
dictionary. We have that book here because this is a lawmaking 
institution, and the precise definition of words is incredibly 
important.
  Now, last time I looked up the word ``exclusively,'' it meant 
everything, excluding everything else, solely, or only.
  However, the IRS must have found an alternative definition for 
exclusively when it issued a regulation allowing social welfare 
organizations to only primarily promote social welfare. This 
contradiction between Federal law and IRS regulation has allowed these 
groups to spend over a quarter-billion dollars on political campaign 
activity, not their social welfare mission, while keeping their donors 
secret.
  I urge my colleagues simply to vote against the bill and let the IRS 
move forward with this proposed regulation to correct this. 
``Exclusively'' should mean exclusively.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for 
yielding and for his leadership on holding the IRS accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not stand by and let the IRS target American 
citizens based on their political beliefs, and yet, that is what has 
been going on. It has been uncovered.
  The President tries to act like it is some isolated incident, and 
yet, of course, we have got all kind of testimony that shows this goes 
way beyond some local office. This is widespread abuse of power by the 
Internal Revenue Service, and what we are seeing now, with this latest 
proposed rule, is literally something that would try to shut down an 
entire segment of American people who want to participate in the 
democratic process, Mr. Speaker.
  The IRS should not be able to go and target people based on their 
political views, and yet that is what is happening, and President Obama 
is encouraging this kind of activity where you, literally, have the 
White House using enemy lists to go after people with groups like the 
IRS.
  We have seen it with the EPA. We have seen it with the NLRB and the 
entire alphabet soup of Federal agencies that seems to want to go after 
people that might say something, exercising their First Amendment 
rights, that the White House disagrees with.
  That is not how America works. That is not what this great country is 
built upon, Mr. Speaker.
  If the President doesn't like the political views of somebody, that 
is what the great discourse of this country is all about. That is what 
makes our country so great, that we can disagree. We can exercise those 
great rights that the Founding Fathers put in place and that was later 
established in the Bill of

[[Page 3400]]

Rights, the first of those Bill of Rights being the First Amendment, 
encouraging free speech. It is what makes us strong as a Nation.
  Yet here comes the IRS trying to shut down, use the heavy hammer of 
their power to try to shut down political speech of people who disagree 
with them.
  It is not going to work, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to stand for 
it here in this House. I commend my colleague for bringing the 
legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor. Over 94,000 Americans have 
already weighed in on this as well, signing letters and inputting 
public comment, including 70 members of the Republican Study Committee 
who have chimed in.
  We are not going to stand for this. This will be a bipartisan vote in 
support of this legislation to stop the abuse of the IRS.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously my Republican colleagues don't want to talk about their 
radical Republican tax bill. I understand. I know why, because it is an 
actual bill on the American taxpaying public, a bill that would tax 
Social Security and would eliminate tax deductions on State and local 
taxes that taxpayers have already paid. It will implement chainsaw CPI.
  Instead, they want to focus on a phony scandal--I understand it--and 
not this extreme scandal Republican tax bill, a bill they will force 
upon the American public.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague. I have 
listened all afternoon as my Republican colleagues have held forth 
about the importance of the First Amendment. No one is debating that. 
That is not what this bill is about, despite your best efforts to 
suggest it is.
  What this bill is about is letting organizations spend millions of 
dollars of secret money, secret money, to try to buy elections to serve 
their special interests. That is what this bill is about.
  Now, our Republican colleagues have talked repeatedly about the 
Treasury inspector general's report. I don't know if they have read the 
report, but one of the recommendations was for the IRS to revise its 
regulations and guidelines to clarify this particular area.
  I would have hoped that all of us would want the IRS out of the 
business of determining whether or not a 501(c)(4) is primarily 
involved in political activity or primarily involved in social welfare 
activity.
  I don't want them under the nose of every organization trying to 
figure it out, and that is why the IRS is trying to reform this area of 
the law.
  So why isn't that what our Republican colleagues want?
  Because this isn't about allowing those groups to exercise free 
speech. It is allowing those organizations to be used to channel secret 
money without disclosing those expenditures to the voters. That is what 
this is all about, because you can spend as much money as you want on 
political advocacy and campaigns. All you have to do is organize as a 
527, which is another organization under the Tax Code which, by the 
way, is also tax exempt.
  So why isn't that good enough?
  You can say as much as you want, spend millions of dollars. I will 
tell you why. Because under 527's, people are spending all that money 
to influence elections, they have to disclose. They have to tell voters 
who they are spending millions of dollars to try and influence those 
votes.
  That is not good enough for our Republican colleagues. They want to 
preserve this messy situation because it allows all that secret money 
to flow into these campaigns.
  We believe voters have a right to know who is trying to spend 
millions of dollars to influence these votes, and by the way, eight of 
the nine Justices on the Supreme Court in Citizens United, a case which 
I had lots of problems with lots of parts of it, but eight of the nine 
Justices agree with us that transparency is important.
  Here is what Justice Kennedy said. These transparency laws ``impose 
no ceiling on campaign-related activities'' and ``do not prevent anyone 
from speaking,'' but they have ``a governmental interest in providing 
the electorate with information about the sources of election-related 
spending.''
  Eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices agree with what every poll 
shows, that the American people overwhelmingly want transparency in our 
elections. Because why? Transparency brings accountability.
  I think every American has an interest in knowing who is spending 
millions of dollars to try and get them elected to Congress, to serve 
particular special interests.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for goodness sakes, this isn't about the First 
Amendment. Everyone is in favor of the First Amendment. This is about 
allowing secret money in campaigns, and we should not allow that. It is 
against the public interest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would, first off, mention that the regulation does not mention 
donors.
  Secondly, I would like to point out that the ACLU itself said these 
requirements ``will pose insurmountable compliance issues that go 
beyond practicality and raise First Amendment concerns of the highest 
order.''
  The gentleman mentioned the Treasury inspector general report, but he 
didn't quite precisely characterize what the inspector general said. 
The inspector general said in his report that the IRS, one of the 
recommendations is the IRS provide guidance on how to measure political 
activity, not what constitutes political activity.
  So with those clarifications, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Dave Camp 
for leading this effort to protect our free speech.
  Whenever someone in Washington tells you don't worry, it is not 
really about free speech, trust me, it is.
  A lot of Americans are frightened by the thought that their 
government would target them based on their political beliefs, and I am 
convinced the darkest days in America's history have been when the 
government has tried to silence the voices of those who disagree with 
it.
  We suffered under this intimidation during the civil rights era, 
under the antiwar era, and now today, because conservative 
organizations, constitutional organizations, some who simply want to 
make the country better and have that voice, are now being targeted.
  Make no mistake. This is not about clearing up confusion. This is 
about intimidation. This is about the government using one of the most 
powerful agencies it has, the IRS, the only agency that can destroy 
your life, your family, your business' life with their immense power, 
targeting people because of their political beliefs.
  If you talk about what is free speech, I would point to this: look at 
organizations back home in your community. Those who want to do get out 
to vote, so go vote and have your voices heard. Voter registration, 
candidate forms, let's find out what elected officials and candidates 
feel about the issues.
  Then just grassroots lobbying, letting their neighbors, their 
communities, their members understand the issues and weigh in. That is 
free speech. That is the First Amendment, and when this government 
targets Americans based on it, we have got to stop it.
  Make no mistake, Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Progressive, I 
don't care where you are at on there, we cannot let the government have 
this power. It must be stopped now.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply close this debate by saying 
that, throughout all of this vigorous discussion, we want to make clear 
that this bill just simply asks for a 1-year delay in the 
implementation of this rule to allow ample time for Congress to 
complete its investigation and for the Treasury Inspector General for 
Tax

[[Page 3401]]

Administration to complete its investigation, so that we have the facts 
on the table.
  We shouldn't be jumping ahead of the gun and possibly, and likely, 
infringe on the First Amendment rights of so many people unless we have 
the facts.
  The ranking member of the committee, Mr. Levin, has admitted that the 
investigation is incomplete. Let's just give this time. We owe it to 
the American people to do that. We owe it to the integrity of this 
institution to do our work prior to having these premature judgments 
come forward, especially when the rule does not address all the issues 
that have been discussed today.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I ask that we all vote in favor of this bill, 
support it, and move it forward. Let's hit that pause button. Let's 
complete the investigation and do our due diligence.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Van Hollen moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3865, to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following new sections:

     SEC. 3. PRESERVING DEMOCRACY FROM THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF 
                   SECRET DONORS.

       Nothing in this Act shall limit, restrict, or prohibit the 
     Secretary of the Treasury from issuing regulations requiring 
     the disclosure of secret political donors.

     SEC. 4. RESTORING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S JOB 
                   SEEKERS.

       This Act shall not take effect until the Secretary of the 
     Treasury has certified that the most recent percentage of the 
     insured unemployed (those for whom unemployment taxes were 
     paid during prior employment) who are receiving Federal or 
     State unemployment insurance (UI) benefits when they are 
     actively seeking work is at least equal to the percentage 
     receiving such benefits for the last quarter of 2013, as 
     determined by the Department of Labor's quarterly UI data 
     summary measurement of the Unemployment Insurance recipiency 
     rate for all UI programs.

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.
  If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended, and as the motion indicated, it addresses secret money in 
elections. I am trying to make sure we end that secret money. It also 
deals with the issue of extending unemployment insurance, which my 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) will discuss in a minute.
  But I want to focus on this issue of secret money because this 
resolution, what we are asking our Republican colleagues to join us on, 
is to vote on a very simple statement: to say that nothing in this act 
shall limit, restrict, or prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from 
issuing regulations requiring the disclosure of secret political 
donors.
  Our Republican colleagues all afternoon have said this is about the 
First Amendment. This is about protecting the right of people to 
express their views.
  That is not what their bill is about. Everyone is in favor of people 
being able to express their views. As I indicated earlier, you can form 
what is known as a 527 organization; and whether you are an individual 
or an organization in that form, you can spend millions of dollars to 
try to influence the outcome of elections.
  What we are saying is the voters have a right to know who is 
bankrolling these campaign efforts. What we have seen over the last 
couple of years is a huge increase, an explosion of money being spent 
by outside groups to try to influence the outcome of elections to try 
to elect Members of Congress to support whatever interests those groups 
may support.
  This motion, what we are proposing, would still allow all this money 
to be spent. But--and here is the key--most of that money is now 
flowing through 501(c)(4) organizations because some groups have been 
abusing those organizations to allow them to use them as secret 
conduits, conduits to allow them to secretly fund campaigns.
  All we are saying is let's not take away the right and ability of the 
Treasury Department to adopt regulations to make sure we don't allow 
that secret money because I thought most of us agreed in transparency, 
and I thought most of us agreed in accountability.
  And I know that eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices, even in a 
controversial case, support transparency and disclosure. They say that 
is good for democracy. And you know what? Every poll shows that the 
American people overwhelmingly agree. So let's vote for disclosure and 
vote for this motion.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Let's look at the facts. Only those who won't look don't 
see them.
  There have been 1.9 million long-term unemployed Americans who have 
lost their unemployment insurance since December 28 and another 72,000 
every week. Unemployment insurance lifted 2.5 million from poverty in 
2012, and now hundreds of thousands are sinking into poverty because 
this institution and the House majority will not act.
  The long-term unemployment rate in this country: 36 percent of 
jobless workers over 6 months; the lowest percentage of jobless 
receiving unemployment insurance in over 50 years. It is mindless not 
to act in terms of the national economy. It is heartless not to act in 
terms of the individual lives of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans and their 
families.
  Vote for this motion to recommit. I don't see how anybody can go home 
and vote ``no.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I seek the 
time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition 
to the motion.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit actually allows and 
perpetuates the targeting of Americans by the Internal Revenue Service. 
This motion to recommit permits the government to restrict the free 
speech of Americans.
  I can't stand for this. The American people can't stand for this and 
should not stand for this. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191, 
nays 230, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page 3402]]



                             [Roll No. 68]

                               YEAS--191

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blumenauer
     Ellison
     Gosar
     Jeffries
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rush
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1620

  Messrs. PITTENGER, COBLE, POSEY, RICE of South Carolina, BILIRAKIS, 
AMODEI, ADERHOLT, SCHOCK, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. FUDGE, Messrs. SERRANO and COHEN changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 176, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--243

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--176

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)

[[Page 3403]]


     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Ellison
     Gosar
     Jeffries
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1627

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk to correct 
the name of the bill to the Protect Anonymous Special Interests Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Polis of Colorado moves to amend the title of H.R. 3865 
     to read as follows:
       To protect anonymous special interests by prohibiting the 
     Internal Revenue Service from modifying the standard for 
     determining whether an organization is operated exclusively 
     for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6 of rule XVI, the amendment is 
not debatable.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 241, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               AYES--177

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blumenauer
     Ellison
     Gosar
     Grijalva
     Jeffries
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Waxman
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________