[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4542-4544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROHIBITING THE USE OF FUNDS BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE TO TARGET 
                     CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4903) to prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue Service to 
target citizens of the United States for exercising any right 
guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4903

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TARGETING BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
                   SERVICE BASED ON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST 
                   AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

       None of the funds made available under any Act may be used 
     by the Internal Revenue Service to target citizens of the 
     United States for exercising any right guaranteed under the 
     First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include any extraneous material on H.R. 4903 currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of H.R. 4903, and I 
thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) for introducing the bill.
  We live in a Nation that is founded on the idea of free speech. The 
government does not control our media. It does not control who we 
decide to associate with. We don't live in a place where we should have 
to think twice before supporting a group that aligns with their views 
or making their political beliefs known to others.
  The heavy hand of the Federal Government should not control how an 
American shares their views. Yet, that is just what happened to nearly 
300 groups that applied for tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.
  These organizations were small gatherings of like-minded people who 
wanted to discuss their views and educate the public about those views. 
They filled out the necessary IRS paperwork to become tax exempt, as it 
is required by the law.
  But months and even years after they applied, after answering 
intrusive questions, after providing mountains of documents, after 
having their activities monitored by IRS agents, after all of this, 
many of them still sat in IRS limbo.
  During the investigation, the Ways and Means Committee staff reviewed 
upwards of 1 million documents and interviewed dozens of IRS and 
Treasury officials. This exhaustive, years-long investigation yielded 
the information that we now know, that 298 applications for tax-exempt 
status were put on hold. Over 80 percent of them were right-leaning and 
only 10 percent were left-leaning.
  Thanks to the committee's investigation, we know that the former head 
of the IRS division that governs tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner, was 
told that frontline agents noticed an uptick in groups referring to 
themselves with phrases like Tea Party. She said the Tea Party matter 
was very dangerous and suggested how to deny those applications.
  We know she inserted herself into the supposedly nonbiased procedures 
that she had created. She then bypassed even those procedures and 
singled out certain taxpayers for additional scrutiny and audit.
  We also know that the IRS bureaucracy in Washington went as far as 
setting up a surveillance program called a review of operations. In 
other words, an IRS unit in Dallas would monitor a group's activity, 
including their Internet postings, trying to build a case for an audit.
  Over 80 percent of the groups that were flagged for this surveillance 
were right-leaning and, of the groups actually selected for the audit, 
Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of them were right-leaning.
  When concerns about this activity reached Congress, my colleagues at 
Ways and Means asked multiple members of the IRS leadership about it. 
They assured the committee that all was well. We now know what was 
really going on.
  When Lois Lerner finally admitted in 2013 that the IRS had targeted 
taxpayers based on their political beliefs, the President went on 
national television and promised to help Congress get to the bottom of 
the situation. He later changed his tune and blamed the targeting on a 
few rogue IRS agents.
  If the Ways and Means investigation showed us anything, it is that 
the wrongdoing happened nowhere else but in Washington, D.C., and that 
the IRS employees on the front lines were not to blame.

[[Page 4543]]

  We must make sure that political targeting like this never happens 
again. By passing this bill to reaffirm American taxpayers' First 
Amendment rights, we take a step toward that goal.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what is being prohibited here is already prohibited. It 
is prohibited in the law. It is prohibited by law that we passed in 
1998.
  It says that there shall not be action as to any taxpayer, taxpayer 
representative, or other employee of the IRS in violation of any right 
under the Constitution of the United States.
  So maybe this bill is an effort to bring back the long discussion we 
had about the IRS procedures. I don't think this is the time to 
relitigate it.
  I was there and you weren't, if I might say so. I thought maybe you 
would bring it up; so, I did go back to what happened.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to remind the gentleman 
to direct his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will do that.
  I decided to go back to 2013 to the hearing of Ways and Means. After 
the inspector general gave his report--this is May 17, 2013--this is 
what I asked the inspector general: Did you find any evidence of 
political motivation in the selection of the tax-exemption 
applications?
  And the inspector said: We did not, sir.
  Look, we could spend hours talking about what has happened to the 
rules regarding 501(c)(4)'s in this country. We could go back and 
discuss the abuse of the 501(c)(4) provisions. We could go back and 
look at how much political money is being poured into this process by 
501(c)(4)'s.
  We could go back and discuss what was the original language in the 
501(c)(4) legislation that no political money could be used. Instead, 
it was interpreted decades ago that it relates to the majority must not 
be.
  So what has happened is that 501(c)(4)'s--by the way, most of them 
are rightwing organizations, most of them.
  Most of the money has come from rightwing organizations using the 
mask of 501(c)(4)'s to essentially, I think, pollute the democratic 
processes in this country. We shouldn't really be doing that. You 
raised it; so, I am responding.
  What this bill does is simply say that the constitutional rights 
should essentially prevail, and I fully agree. It is already in the 
1998 legislation. So let's move on. Let's not use vehicles for 
political purposes.
  Look, we have so much more we could be doing today in terms of tax 
legislation. We have legislation relating to inversions. A number of us 
have introduced it.
  We complain that the executive uses too much power. They have used 
their power relating to inversions up to, I think, a legitimate point 
and have said to us in the Congress that we need to go further--the 
Congress does--to address the problem of inversions in this country. 
Essentially, we do nothing. We do nothing about this.
  There was talk earlier today about tax reform. We have heard this 
talking endlessly, and there is no product. There is no product 
whatsoever.
  So this bill simply restates what is already in the 1998 law which we 
completely, completely embrace. So I suggest we just get on with our 
business and try to do real business.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
  Yesterday marked the deadline for all Americans to file their 2015 
taxes, and Americans from all walks of life disclosed some of their 
most private information and handed over their hard-earned dollars to 
the government.
  With this in mind, last week I was proud to introduce legislation 
prohibiting the use of funds by the IRS to target citizens for 
exercising their First Amendment rights. Americans have seen Federal 
agencies abuse their power, and the IRS is one of the worst offenders.
  The IRS has specifically targeted conservative groups simply for 
being conservative. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
  My bill preserves the integrity of the First Amendment by ensuring 
its protections are never compromised by unelected Federal bureaucrats.
  Specifically, H.R. 4903 protects Americans by prohibiting use of 
funds by the IRS and its rogue bureaucrats to carry out government 
abuse on citizens for exercising their constitutional rights. I can 
think of nothing more despicable than persecution for beliefs.
  Tax day is stressful enough with the Tax Code we have in place. The 
IRS has no business in striking fear into the hearts of Americans for 
expressing their strongly held beliefs and convictions.
  The Constitution is the law of the land, whether the IRS likes it or 
not. We must hold the IRS and its unelected bureaucrats accountable, 
especially because they have overstepped their constitutional bounds 
before, as my colleague pointed out. My colleague on the other side may 
dispute our legislation, but they can't dispute the facts, Mr. Speaker.
  My colleagues serving on the Oversight and Government Reform 
committee and the Ways and Means Committee have been investigating the 
IRS' unlawful targeting of conservative groups since 2012. They were 
dogged in their pursuit of justice for every American's fundamental 
right, the freedom of speech.
  The investigation revealed that, as a result of the Supreme Court's 
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, democratic 
leadership pressured IRS bureaucrats to fix the problem by taking an 
aggressive stance against political speech by tax-exempt entities.

                              {time}  1445

  My colleagues also found clear evidence and testimony that the Tea 
Party and other conservative organizations were targeted for enhanced 
scrutiny because their organizations' names reflected their 
conservative beliefs.
  For 27 months, from February 2010 until May 2012, the IRS 
systematically targeted conservative tax-exempt applicants for 
additional scrutiny and delay. This is an egregious violation of the 
First Amendment rights of all Americans.
  The leader of this scheme was Lois Lerner, an IRS official at the 
time, as was mentioned.
  In April 2010, a sensitive case report on the targeted Tea Party 
groups is shared with Lerner, when she first learned of a spike in Tea 
Party applications.
  In June and July of 2011, Lerner is briefed that employees are using 
such terms as ``Tea Party,'' ``patriots,'' ``9/12 Project,'' 
``government spending,'' ``government debt,'' ``taxes,'' and ``make 
America a better place to live'' to flag applications.
  Lerner, after learning about such terms, tells the Cincinnati office 
to revise its guidelines for flagging applications. The guidance is 
expanded to include ``organizations involved with political lobbying or 
advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).''
  Also, Lois Lerner's hard drive supposedly crashed that June, erasing 
2 years worth of emails. How convenient was that?
  In March 2012, Darrell Issa, then-chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight and Government Reform, expressed concern to the IRS inspector 
general that Tea Party groups were being targeted by the IRS. Doug 
Shulman, IRS Commissioner at the time, vehemently denied on the record 
to Congress that the agency was targeting conservative groups.
  In May 2013, Lois Lerner testified before the House Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. She proclaimed her innocence before 
invoking her Fifth Amendment right and refusing to answer questions 
from lawmakers. For 2 more years, the IRS circumvented Congress' 
investigations.
  Lois Lerner, time and time again, refused to cooperate with Congress 
in its

[[Page 4544]]

investigation of targeting conservative groups and, instead, hid behind 
the Fifth Amendment.
  Before I was elected to Congress, my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives rightly voted to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of 
Congress for her refusal to cooperate with ongoing investigations into 
the agency's special targeting of groups with ``Tea Party'' or 
``patriot'' in their names that were seeking tax-exempt status.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, a decision to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of 
Congress was not taken lightly. Not surprisingly, the Obama 
administration's Department of Justice unilaterally decided not to 
prosecute Lois Lerner for her unlawful actions.
  However, Congress vowed to continue to find answers and hold the IRS 
accountable for its actions. This is why I stand before you today. I 
refuse to allow another American to be persecuted and targeted by IRS 
bureaucrats for expressing their First Amendment rights, no matter 
their beliefs.
  The House holds the power of the purse. As such, it is within our 
authority to gut the IRS where it hurts the most: their use of hard-
earned tax dollars.
  H.R. 4903 prohibits the IRS from using funds made available by any 
law to target citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.
  Today I urge my colleagues to stand with me to ensure that the IRS no 
longer oversteps its authority and supports the God-given 
constitutional rights of every American. No American should fear 
persecution from the government for expressing his or her strongly held 
beliefs and conviction.
  Please join me in supporting H.R. 4903.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I thought maybe this bill was an excuse to try to relitigate this 
issue. I was among the first who suggested that Lois Lerner be relieved 
of her duties. I did so because of, I thought, the incompetent way it 
was handled, but not because there was any evidence of political 
motivation.
  Again, I want to go back to the question I asked the inspector 
general in 2013: ``Did you find any evidence of political motivation in 
the selection of the tax-exemption applications?''
  Mr. George said: ``We did not, sir.''
  So what has happened here is essentially getting up and reading a 
one-sided, often erroneous text, often conclusions that are not at all 
based on fact.
  We really should not be relitigating this today. We should be acting 
on tax legislation, on the budget, and other necessary issues that face 
the people of this country.
  I hope no one thinks that the passage of this bill will in any way 
imply on the part of any of us who have been involved with this on the 
Democratic side that there is any substance to the attack that has been 
launched here on the IRS and conclusions that have been reached that 
are not founded on fact.
  It is kind of sad. The 1998 law says no IRS employee may violate the 
constitutional rights of a taxpayer. That is absolutely clear. It is 
absolutely clear.
  So with this, I want to express my regret that this bill is being 
used as a vehicle for strictly political purposes. Let's abide by the 
Constitution and the 1998 law. Let's also abide by the responsibilities 
of this Congress, and that is to act on critical legislation and not 
use a bill as a vehicle to try to go over once and once again a case 
where there is deep difference of opinion and often deep misstatement 
of facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not forget that what we are doing here today is 
ensuring that the IRS will never target Americans based on their 
political beliefs, on their First Amendment rights. This bill will just 
make sure that doesn't happen. Regardless of what the past was--and 
what is wonderful about the past and being at congressional hearings 
and taking part in them and serving on a committee or not serving on a 
committee is that they are public and that they are open, and that you 
can ask questions, and the general public at home can hear the answers 
that are given there.
  Let me remind you that in 2013, Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had 
targeted taxpayers based on their political beliefs. She said that the 
Tea Party matter was very dangerous. She suggested how to deny the 
applications. We know for a fact that she inserted herself into the 
supposedly unbiased processes that she had created and then bypassed 
even these procedures and singled out certain taxpayers for additional 
scrutiny and audit.
  Do we think, really, that it was just a fluke that 100 percent of the 
audits and the groups that were selected for audit were right-leaning? 
I don't believe so, sir.
  While that investigation may be over, it is still important to have 
discussions like this to reassure the taxpayers back home that this 
type of targeting will never happen, that we have legislation before us 
today that will stop some of the abuses that may have happened in the 
past and ensure that they won't happen in the future. That is why I am 
going to urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4903.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________