[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8706-8713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PREVENTING IRS ABUSE AND PROTECTING FREE SPEECH ACT

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 778, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 5053) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from requiring that the 
identity of contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual 
returns, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 778, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
114-58, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5053

       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 ``Preventing IRS Abuse and 
     Protecting Free Speech Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING THAT IDENTITY OF 
                   CONTRIBUTORS TO 501(C) ORGANIZATIONS BE 
                   INCLUDED IN ANNUAL RETURNS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as 
     subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) the 
     following:
       ``(n) Identifying Information of Donors.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may not require the name, address, or other 
     identifying information of any contributor to any 
     organization described in section 501(c) of any amount of any 
     contribution, grant, bequest, devise, or gift of money or 
     property.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply--
       ``(i) to any disclosure required by subsection (a)(2), and
       ``(ii) with respect to any a contribution, grant, bequest, 
     devise, or gift of money or property made by an officer or 
     director of the organization (or an individual having powers 
     or responsibilities similar to those of officers or 
     directors) or any covered employee.
       ``(B) Covered employee.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `covered employee' means any employee (including any 
     former employee) of the organization if the employee is one 
     of the 5 highest compensated employees of the organization 
     for the taxable year.
       ``(C) Compensation from related organizations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Compensation of a covered employee by 
     the organization shall include any compensation paid with 
     respect to employment of such employee by any related person 
     or governmental entity.
       ``(ii) Related organizations.--A person or governmental 
     entity shall be treated as related to the organization if 
     such person or governmental entity--

       ``(I) controls, or is controlled by, the organization,
       ``(II) is controlled by one or more persons that control 
     the organization,
       ``(III) is a supported organization (as defined in section 
     509(f)(3)) during the taxable year with respect to the 
     organization,
       ``(IV) is a supporting organization described in section 
     509(a)(3) during the taxable year with respect to the 
     organization, or
       ``(V) in the case of an organization that is a voluntary 
     employees' beneficiary association described in section 
     501(c)(9), establishes, maintains, or makes contributions to 
     such voluntary employees' beneficiary association.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6033(b)(5) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``all'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``to the extent not 
     prohibited by subsection (n),''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns required to be filed for taxable years 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 60 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on H.R. 5053, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Over the past several years, the American people have come to learn 
just how reckless and untrustworthy the IRS can be with their sensitive 
taxpayer information.
  Most concerning of all is that this Federal agency, which holds 
immense power to disrupt the lives of taxpayers, has directly exploited 
sensitive taxpayer information for political purposes.
  We have responsibility to taxpayers to make sure this is never 
allowed to happen again. That is why we fought hard to push forward a 
ban on IRS political targeting as part of the PATH Act. And last 
December, that ban was signed into law for the very first time.
  But we still have more work to do to clean up the IRS and hold it 
more accountable to the taxpayers it serves. The Preventing IRS Abuse 
and Protecting Free Speech Act continues this critical effort.
  This important bill, authored by Congressman Roskam, would prohibit 
the IRS from collecting the identity of people who donate to tax-exempt 
organizations. During our committee's IRS political targeting 
investigation, we learned that the IRS not only singled out certain 
organizations for heightened security, but in some cases, it even 
demanded they turn over a list of all their donors. These invasions of 
privacy are completely unacceptable.
  The bill before us today makes much needed steps to protect taxpayer 
identities and ease the compliance burden on tax-exempt organizations. 
Most importantly, this bill helps ensure that Americans can never again 
be singled out by the IRS for their political beliefs.
  I am grateful to Chairman Roskam for his leadership and diligence on 
this important issue, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent

[[Page 8707]]

that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) be permitted to control 
the reminder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Republican majority believes the more hidden money in politics, 
the better. Freedom of speech, they say, requires more and more dark 
money or that democracy requires the ability of a few key people to 
write a check of $100 million without anyone knowing who signed the 
check or, as a Koch brothers executive claimed, Americans have the 
right to ``anonymous free speech.''
  This bill now would help extend that anonymity to foreign individuals 
and governments who contribute in violation of our laws.
  We have a crisis in our campaign system, a crisis. Tens of millions 
of dollars are being spent without full disclosure. So our constituents 
know and can make their own judgments about who is influencing our 
elections. To make matters worse, many of the organizations now doing 
the spending are organized under our Tax Code as groups allegedly 
engaged in social welfare activities.
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, political spending 
by such tax-exempt groups at this point in the current election cycle 
is five times the amount spent at the same point during the 2012 cycle. 
Spending during the 2012 Presidential election cycle by 501(c)(4)s and 
501(c)(6)s soared to more than $300 million, up from $100 million in 
2008 and just $6 million in 2004, according to the Center for 
Responsive Politics. And the three largest 501(c)(4) spenders from the 
2012 cycle, representing fully 51 percent of the total, have special 
meaning to this House majority.

                              {time}  1400

  They include Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which spent $71 million; 
Americans for Prosperity of the Koch brothers spent $36 million; and 
the American Future Fund, also the Koch brothers, spent $25 million.
  It is little wonder that the Koch brothers sent a letter to the 
Committee on Ways and Means Republicans the morning our committee 
marked up this bill in April, urging support of this legislation. It 
seeks to codify the secrecy around donations to social welfare 
organizations for political purposes.
  So Republicans are here today to continue their attack on the IRS as 
they drive, really, to further undermine our campaign finance system.
  This legislation removes the last safeguard against foreign 
governments and foreign individuals from influencing our elections. 
Currently, foreign money cannot legally be given or spent in our 
elections, and a real protection we have against the use of foreign 
money by politically active social welfare organizations is that they 
must disclose their donors to the IRS.
  This requirement means that tax exempt 501(c)(4) groups know they can 
be held accountable if they illegally spend foreign money in Federal 
elections.
  Thirteen key campaign finance and government transparency groups, 
including Democracy 21 and Common Cause, have written to Congress 
strongly opposing this bill. In their letter, they state: ``The . . . 
bill would open the door wide for secret money from foreign donors to 
be illegally laundered into Federal elections through 501(c)(4) and 
other 501(c) groups . . . House Members should vote against eliminating 
the existing check against foreign countries, foreign companies, and 
foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our 
elections.''
  This legislation would eliminate that protection. The administration 
opposes this bill. In its Statement of Administration Policy, it 
states: ``By permanently preventing the IRS from requiring reporting of 
donor information by 501(c) organizations, H.R. 5053 would constrain 
the IRS in enforcing tax laws and reduce the transparency of private 
foundations.''
  Therefore, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in bringing this 
bill to the floor. Just to put this into context, let's focus in on 
what we are really talking about. Every year, tax exempt 501(c) 
organizations fill out a form 990, and they send it to the IRS. So far, 
so good. It makes all the sense in the world. Public information. It is 
supposed to be public, and the public is able to review that.
  Under current law--actually, it is a rule; it is not a statute, it is 
a rule--501(c) organizations have to fill out Schedule B. Okay, what is 
Schedule B? Schedule B is donor information. This donor information is 
submitted to the IRS. But here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The IRS 
Commissioner has said: We don't think we need this actually. The person 
who is in charge of the tax exempt unit at the IRS has publicly said 
they are reviewing this.
  If all the other claims were true--I mean, I got carpal tunnel 
syndrome writing down all these things: hidden money, crisis in 
campaigns, codify secrecy, last safeguard against foreign influence. 
Put up the ramparts, Mr. Speaker. If all that was true, then why would 
the IRS Commissioner be saying these things, that they don't think they 
need Schedule B?
  And further, why wouldn't the White House just declaratively say they 
are going to veto it? But did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? The 
White House didn't say they would veto it. Why? This is a pretty good 
idea. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle at this point 
aren't persuaded that it is a good idea, but just because they are slow 
to the game doesn't mean it is not a good idea.
  So why is this a good idea? Here is why. The IRS in the past has 
demonstrated they have leaked this information. When did they do it? 
They leaked it in the case of the National Organization for Marriage, a 
group that was advocating for traditional marriage. They filed their 
Schedule Bs. Lo and behold, an IRS employee leaked it. Out it goes. You 
can imagine the donor harassment, the hassle, and so forth. So the IRS' 
hands in the past, Mr. Speaker, are not exactly clean when it comes to 
holding this information close. The National Governors Association also 
was similarly situated. All right, that is the first reason.
  The second reason is the IRS acknowledges that they don't need this 
to administer the Tax Code. They don't need it. What is their job? 
Their job is to administer the Tax Code. They don't need it to 
administer the Tax Code.
  Finally, we on the Subcommittee on Oversight and those of us on the 
Committee on Ways and Means know all too well that the IRS is very 
poorly equipped right now, Mr. Speaker, to deal with cybersecurity 
issues and identity theft issues.
  So my final point is this: the IRS has demonstrated an inability to 
hold this information in the past. They have demonstrated an inability 
to hold it in the future. And they don't need it. So if they don't need 
it, let's not give it to them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on why this is a bad 
idea. We have seen in recent years a proliferation of political groups 
claiming tax exempt social welfare. You know how many groups in the 
past 5 years have claimed that? That is the status as a means to hide 
the identities of their donors. Can't put it any more elementary than 
that.
  Now, that is the very law my friend from Illinois--and I mean that 
seriously--the very law that he is talking about. These groups offer a 
back door into unrestricted spending on political speech, often in the 
form of advertising meant to influence elections. I don't think we 
would disagree on that point.
  H.R. 5053 would make it easier for super-PACs to spend money 
anonymously in support of their preferred candidates or political 
party. That is

[[Page 8708]]

H.R. 5053. The bill before us today would make it easier for groups to 
operate in the shadows, groups like Americans for Prosperity and 
American Future Fund, which together spent more than $61 million in 
just one election in 2012 yet still claim tax exempt status.
  Now, I believe we need better transparency and accountability in our 
system. Disclosure of donors to the IRS is a minimum safeguard and a 
practical tool for auditing. Furthermore, requiring disclosure of 
donors is one of the only safeguards we have against foreign money 
influencing our elections.
  That is why so many good government groups have spoken out against 
this legislation, groups that promote transparency in our political 
system, like the Sunlight Foundation and the League of Women Voters. 
This bill would make it easier, Mr. Speaker, for anonymous donors to 
funnel dark money into groups that spend unlimited sums of money to 
influence elections. This flies in the face of our democratic 
principles. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  This isn't about the IRS. This is about hiding who contributes and 
how much. The IRS isn't for sale, but there are many buyers out there, 
Mr. Speaker, who want to remain unknown. You and I, the sponsor of this 
bill, we don't have that luxury. We have to put down everything when 
someone contributes to us. You know it, and I know it. I believe the 
PACs should have to do that, too. Why in God's name you don't think so, 
I have no idea.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, one quick point. The gentleman said that it 
was a practical tool for auditing, and yet there was a lawsuit recently 
where the attorney general of California tried to disclose the Schedule 
B information. The Federal judge who struck down the public disclosure 
pointed out that it had not been used in a single concrete instance, 
not one. And, in fact, the folks in California had not had this 
information submitted for 10 years before they even noticed that it was 
missing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Tax 
Policy.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleague, Chairman 
Roskam, for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is an important 
piece of legislation, Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech 
Act.
  Back in 2012, when I was the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, I started this investigation into 
the IRS' unconstitutional targeting of conservative groups for their 
political beliefs. We passed some legislation back then to improve 
transparency and accountability at the IRS, but I can tell you much 
more needs to be done, and this is part of that effort to continue to 
hold this agency accountable.
  Taxpayers deserve to know whether the IRS is violating their privacy. 
Chairman Roskam's bill furthers that effort by preventing the IRS from 
targeting nonprofits by prohibiting the agency from collecting the 
identity of donors who contribute to these organizations. We know that 
the IRS can impose an audit at any time, but there is no need for the 
IRS to just collect all this information when they can't even do some 
of the things they are supposed to be doing with the resources they 
have.
  This bill is a step toward restoring individual privacy that the IRS 
has been exploiting and abusing, and I think the American people have 
had enough. Passing this bill would dramatically reduce the information 
that the IRS has the legal ability to demand, lessening that chance, 
that potential for abuse.
  Specifically, the bill would limit the Secretary of the Treasury from 
requiring the name, address, or other identifying information of any 
contributor, regardless of the nature or size of the contribution, with 
two exceptions.
  We know the IRS still operates under the shadow of a scandal in which 
it admitted to targeting organizations based on their political 
beliefs. We have to get to the bottom of this. This agency has to be 
reined in. We need to strengthen the laws that protect American 
citizens' privacy. This investigation is still ongoing. I can tell you, 
the IRS still refuses to admit that some of its employees engaged in 
intentional wrongdoing.
  To successfully carry out its mission, the IRS must be viewed by the 
American people as an unbiased arbiter of the law. It cannot do that 
without coming clean. H.R. 5053 is a necessary step to require more 
accountability and transparency at the IRS. I urge my colleagues to 
support us in passing this critical bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), a truly distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, if you are frustrated, if you are down and 
out, if you lack self-esteem, if you really want to get a good shot in 
the arm, kick the IRS. I am telling you, I have been down here 46 
years. It always works. It always works.
  But to take away an institution that depends on the voluntary 
contribution of taxpayers, to take away the image of trying to do the 
right thing for the American people because we have had some severe 
setbacks, whether under Democrats or Republicans, is just the wrong 
thing to do.

                              {time}  1415

  I remember the days when people would say: Get some good grades and 
live a good life and do the right thing and you can run for public 
office.
  I like to believe that not every Republican kid comes from a rich 
family. I like to believe that they have the same aspirations, no 
matter what the political party is.
  But today, in communities throughout these great United States, if 
somebody says they want to serve in the local, State, or Federal 
Government, what is the first thing you ask? How much money do you 
have? And then, you contribute that to the negative ads, where an 
Independent listens to Republicans and the Democrats, and are they 
turned off?
  But assuming that some foreigner wants to interfere with a local 
election, that should bring Democrats and Republicans together. We can 
fuss with each other, but we certainly don't like foreigners to 
interfere with our foreign policy.
  Recently we have had some people come right here to the well from 
foreign governments and criticize our President. Criticism is one 
thing, but financing a political party or a political candidate is 
repugnant to everything that we stand for.
  If you really want to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars to 
support an individual, why in the heck would you not want your name to 
be known?
  To say that the IRS cannot collect information is opening the door to 
a terrible thing that can happen to our country. If you want to break 
all of the laws which put caps on how much you are spending, then use a 
charitable organization and say: Hey, it is listed not as political, 
but I can get away with it.
  It is the wrong thing to do, not for Republicans, but for Americans.
  You know, people try to get even. To the victor belongs the spoils. 
So this time, it is Obama, and he is leaving. But I really think that 
the principle of having people go into public service is being 
shattered by this type of thing, where foreigners and rich people can 
make contributions and not be proud enough to state it.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York asked a provocative question. Here is why 
you don't want this type of capacity in the hands of the IRS, I would 
say, and it is this reason: there is a fundamental lack of trust. The 
IRS has run roughshod over people's freedoms in the past.
  The Commissioner himself has said: I don't need this information. We 
don't need this information. There are other entities--that is, the 
Federal Election Commission, the Bank Secrecy Act, and so forth--that 
are in place that are protections against foreign influence. But, 
basically, the IRS--and based on the work that the committee has done--
I would argue, we have seen where the IRS has not treated these things 
well.
  So go back to a case that is famous, a case from years ago, a case 
during

[[Page 8709]]

the civil rights movement, where the NAACP was told: You have to 
disclose your donor information.
  How absurd. How ridiculous. How unconstitutional, in fact, that was. 
We are not at the same threshold, I would submit, as the NAACP case, 
but I would suggest that there is something untoward about an agency 
here--the Internal Revenue Service--that has what? Power to take things 
away, power to put people in prison. And you are giving them 
information that they have squandered and abused in the past.
  Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me make it perfectly clear. If the IRS had leaked 
information or had not done their job, they should not only be 
investigated, they should go to trial, and those who violate the law 
ought to be convicted and serve time for it.
  You don't just take away the opportunity for somebody. I am not 
suggesting that you don't have rich people or foreign governments that 
are not nice people, but we should not provide a vehicle for them to 
influence our elections.
  Just because the Commissioner says, I don't need additional 
responsibility, I don't care whether he is appointed by a Democrat or a 
Republican, it is not for Commissioners to say what is good for this 
country. It is for this House of Representatives and the Senate.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, I agree.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) to 
give us more insight.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act.
  As we debate this legislation, I think back to June of 2013, when 
victims of the IRS targeting testified before our Ways and Means 
Committee, including someone from my own State, a fellow Tennesseean, 
Kevin Kookogey, who is the founder of Linchpins of Liberty.
  This legislation protects groups like Kevin's from further IRS abuse 
by repealing the so-called Schedule B requirement that compels tax 
exempt organizations to turn over names, addresses, and other personal 
identifiable information of their donors.
  Now, we know this information has been misused before and that the 
IRS, as has already been said, doesn't use this information to 
determine a tax exempt status anyway.
  So why in a free country would these groups need to turn over such 
personal information in the first place?
  We should all be asking ourselves that question. This information is 
not needed, and it will protect those who choose to give to those 
organizations without having their information misused.
  Let's fix this problem today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5053.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in this House, the Republican leadership has failed to 
provide sufficient investment in major emergencies facing Americans. 
They have refused to address the horrible epidemic of gun violence that 
plagues communities like mine and provides extremists an easy tool to 
kill dozens of people in minutes.
  Further, the Republican leadership has refused to give sufficient 
funds to combat the Zika virus, risking the health and well-being of 
Americans. They have refused to raise the minimum wage to help working 
families improve their quality of life and have advanced efforts to 
reduce access to school meals for low-income children.
  Yet, today, the priority of Republican leadership is a bill to 
blindfold the Internal Revenue Service to large donors to any 501(c) 
organizations except under very narrow circumstances, opening the 
floodgates for unlimited, anonymous donations, possibly from foreign 
sources.
  The confidential disclosure of donors provides an important check on 
secret money from foreign governments or individuals that could be 
funneled into our elections. This is not a freedom of speech issue. 
This is not a fight for American freedom. This is a fight to protect 
the secret efforts to funnel so much money into certain coffers to 
undermine the integrity of our election system.
  I strongly oppose this bill and hope the Republican leadership will 
focus on addressing the true emergencies facing American families, such 
as gun violence, hunger, poverty, and health. These are real deal 
issues.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act.
  The IRS requires tax exempt organizations to report sensitive 
information about their donors, but, frankly, the information is 
unnecessary.
  There are numerous examples of the IRS targeting political groups, 
which demonstrates that the IRS is incapable of using this information 
for legitimate purposes. Even the IRS itself has indicated it is 
considering eliminating this requirement. By eliminating the IRS' power 
to inquire into the membership of private citizen groups, taxpayers' 
identities will be protected and the IRS will be prevented from 
improperly targeting certain organizations.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5053 to hold the 
IRS accountable and act in the best interest of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee and chairman of our 
Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is, first, important to clarify how this 
legislation impacts tax exempt organizations under the Tax Code, 
section 501(c). Many of these tax exempt organizations we recognize as 
charities, like United Way and so forth, foundations. Social welfare 
organizations, they come in any variety.
  A social welfare organization, typically when we think social 
welfare, it means, essentially, organizations that are promoting the 
common good and the general welfare of the people of a community. 
Social welfare organizations.
  What the problem, then, here is that we have seen so many social 
welfare organizations, the 501(c)(4)s, become not promoters of social 
good, but some of the biggest campaign spenders in our election 
process. They use the loopholes in the Tax Code to be able to collect a 
whole bunch of money that usually Americans think goes to do social 
welfare and instead is now being used to drive our campaigns.
  So this is now the problem with this particular legislation. This 
legislation says: You know what? Those organizations right now have to 
document who is giving them money, who is contributing the dollars to 
them, if it is bigger than a $5,000 contribution.
  This bill says no longer would any of those 501(c) organizations, 
those tax exempt organizations, have to file the name of the 
contributor.
  At a time, right now, when so many Americans have become skeptical 
about our government's ability to promote the interests of our citizens 
first, at a time when so many believe our government is driven by 
special interests, we should be asking for more openness in our 
government, not less in how we do business. Secret money is hijacking 
our American democracy.
  This bill would prohibit the disclosure of substantial contributions 
and promote special interest secrecy.
  What do I mean by that? This bill becomes a license to secretly 
influence our elections.
  How? A foreign government doesn't like where American policy is 
going, so guess what? They want to influence who gets elected.
  What do they do? They don't make a contribution to a candidate 
because they can't under the law.
  What did they do? They now give to one of these social welfare 
organizations and let them use the money to politic in our campaigns.

[[Page 8710]]

  And guess what? If this bill becomes law, you will never know the 
name of that foreign government or foreign government official who 
makes that contribution. It can be a $5,000 contribution. It can be a 
$5 billion contribution. You never have to report it if you are one of 
these tax exempt organizations.
  What else? Say there are drug traffickers who don't like that we may 
be getting tough on our drug laws. They don't like it. They want to 
elect people who won't be so tough. Because a drug trafficker won't 
give it directly to a candidate, they give it to one of these social 
welfare organizations. The social welfare organization, under this 
bill, won't have to report the contribution, the name of the 
contributor. If that drug trafficker gives $5,000 or $5 billion, it is 
never disclosed.
  Who else? We are right now fighting ISIS. Say ISIS wants to make sure 
somebody gets elected to be the next President or a Member of Congress. 
They don't like somebody else. How do the they influence our elections? 
They get one of their wealthy contributors to give money to one of 
these tax exempt organizations. And guess what? That ISIS contributor 
never gets disclosed.
  Since when do Americans want us to have a system in our elections 
where contributions can be made to influence our elections if we don't 
know who is doing it?
  If you don't believe it is true that that is going on, let me give 
you this statistic that will blow your mind. Four years ago, in our 
last Presidential election, the parties--the Democrat Party and the 
Republican Party combined, the parties that we know are there for 
politics--spent a quarter of a billion dollars in the 2012 elections.
  Guess how much these social welfare organizations spent in that same 
election? More than the two parties combined.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the parties spent $255 million in 2012 
politicking because that is what they are there to do. They have a 
partisan position, so they are using their money that people contribute 
to politick.
  And by the way, when you make a contribution, you have got to report 
it when you make a contribution to that political party.
  $257 million in 2012 was spent by these social welfare organizations 
on politicking, and under this bill, if it becomes law, guess what? 
Those contributors won't have to be identified; and so whatever your 
motives, you get to influence our elections without the American 
people--who can't do the same thing, because if they give a 
contribution, they have got to disclose it--without the American people 
knowing who you are.
  I don't believe that is where this country wants to go. And I don't 
care under what good-government kind of window you try to frame this, 
what you are doing is you are opening the door for secret money to 
influence our elections--as if it isn't bad enough how much our 
elections are influenced by people who have wealth and do much more 
than the average American can ever do.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time to do that. Let's vote for 
openness. And if you vote for openness, you have to vote against this 
bill.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, did you notice something? Every one of the examples of 
the previous speakers were hypothetical, every one of them, drug 
dealers, drug traffickers, an ISIS strategy, as if ISIS is sitting 
around not cutting people's heads off and writing checks. How absurd.
  The notion that there is no documentation is a false claim. Of course 
people have to have documentation. Of course all of these organizations 
have to document. They have to maintain records. They are subject to 
audit. They are subject to investigation.
  But here is the point. We have been able to demonstrate actual harm 
to actual people who are actually subject to a capricious and vicious 
attack by their own government. That is the Internal Revenue Service, 
who turned their stare at them and intimidated them. That is a fact.
  This House voted on the criminal referral of Lois Lerner. This House 
has investigated, time and time and time again, to the point where our 
friends on the other side of the aisle have basically begged for mercy, 
said: Do we have to talk about the IRS anymore?
  Well, yes, we do because this is the group that has been the bad 
actor, Mr. Speaker, in the past. Let's realize who we are talking 
about.
  Now, I think it is very, very important for us to recognize that we 
have an opportunity to do something, and that is this: let's follow the 
lead of Commissioner Koskinen. If the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service thought, wow, ISIS is coming in here and they are 
coming over the ramparts and they are going to completely flood us, and 
we have got to watch out for ISIS and drug traffickers, why would 
Commissioner Koskinen say this: ``On your 990, you list donors''--and 
we are not about to try to change that. ``As a general matter, who 
gives to you should not matter as to what you're about to do.''
  In other words, these things that the other side is saying are 
illegal, they are illegal. There is nothing in this that changes that.
  But there is a plot trap in their logic, Mr. Speaker, and it is this: 
the IRS, by their own admission, is not going through this on a 
systematic basis. They acknowledge that. They are not going through 
these Schedule B's on a systematic basis. They are not investigating 
them.
  So what happens?
  They are prohibited under the law, Mr. Speaker, from disclosing this 
information, under section 6103, that makes that disclosure a crime. 
Oh, it makes it a crime--unless they do it to some conservative group 
and it happens to be an accident.
  To give us more insight on this, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I walked in and was hearing the gentleman 
from California talking about all these foreign donations, and I 
thought for sure he was talking about the Clinton Foundation donations 
from foreign governments, that there is a big question about their 
influence on policy and appointments and other things. That is why I 
was glad the gentleman clarified the topic at hand here.
  What we are doing here, really, is protecting the First Amendment's 
guarantee of freedom of speech. That is a very bedrock of our 
democratic society. As Benjamin Franklin once wrote: ``Whoever would 
overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness 
of Speech.''
  See, American citizens should not be targeted by their own government 
for exercising their rights, their free speech, which is exactly why we 
are here today; because, under the Obama administration, the IRS has 
all too often targeted groups based on their political affiliation.
  I don't care whether you are liberal, conservative, or somewhere in 
between, you shouldn't have your government targeting you, through the 
IRS, based on your political views. And they even disclosed the 
identities of supporters of these organizations.
  This commonsense bill would protect the First Amendment by 
prohibiting the IRS from collecting sensitive information about 
citizens who support nonprofit organizations like charities, like 
education organizations, trade associations, and more.
  This would, of course, apply to future administrations, too, and will 
simply serve to strengthen our constitutional right to free speech, no 
matter what party occupies the White House.
  Even some IRS officials have admitted they don't need this 
information to enforce the Tax Code, though I imagine they did find it 
useful when they ``accidentally'' leaked at least one conservative 
organization's list of supporters to another nonprofit that, in turn, 
made that list public.
  This bill would take away this power from the agency completely. That 
will

[[Page 8711]]

greatly reduce the chance this could happen again. Doing so would 
protect taxpayers' identities and sensitive information, and help 
prevent the IRS from going after certain organizations because they 
don't agree with that organization's mission.
  So I urge support of this thoughtful legislation. Let's prevent 
taxpayers, protect them, and prevent abuse of taxpayers, and protect 
their free speech rights under the Constitution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time is available? How 
much time do we have, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my friend from Illinois and 
some of his comments, and my friend from Oregon.
  The Clinton Foundation, great that you raise that because, see, the 
Clinton Foundation has raised a lot of questions in the minds of some. 
At least, some are trying to politicize it, whether you agree or don't 
agree with the money that came, because some money did come from 
foreign sources.
  This bill would terminate the need for the Clinton Foundation to 
report any sources of its income. So, if you are concerned that the 
Clinton Foundation has gotten some contributions from foreign sources, 
this bill makes it worse because, under this legislation, the Clinton 
Foundation wouldn't have to report any of those contributions anymore. 
And so that is the craziness of this legislation.
  It is not speculation to say what will happen. We have gone from 
virtually zero spending by social welfare organizations that are tax 
exempt for political purposes to, now, these social welfare 
organizations spending more than the political parties spend together.
  So it is not speculation. The expert from the Joint Tax Committee 
said so himself. This is what will happen, could happen, if we pass 
this legislation.
  Please reject this bill.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I think I am the last speaker on this side, 
so I am prepared to close, but I will defer to the gentleman from 
Michigan if he wants to wind it up.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who has worked so hard for so 
long on this issue. It is a privilege.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, this is about which direction we want to 
move in as a country, as a Congress, as a responsible institution, as a 
government, in terms of whether we are going to respect the American 
people and their voice, whether we are going to turn their voice over 
to Big Money, to special interests that are hijacking our politics and 
our government.
  The problem with the proposal that is being put on the floor today is 
that it is moving us in the wrong direction. It is moving us away from 
the kind of disclosure information transparency in our political 
process that the American people are demanding.
  If you talk to the average person out there, they feel disrespected, 
locked out, left out, left behind, pushed to the margins of their own 
democracy, feeling as though Big Money calls the shots, the insiders 
rule the roost, and the average person has no voice, is of no 
consequence.
  They see the money being spent on these campaign commercials during 
election time. They don't know where it is coming from. They don't know 
what organizations are supporting it, and they feel like they don't 
have a stake in their own democracy anymore.
  What is interesting is that, you know, traditionally, in the past, 
Republicans had argued for more transparency and disclosure; that all 
political activity, all contributions that were made and all 
expenditures, should be divulged. In fact, in 1996, Mitch McConnell, 
the majority leader in the Senate, declared, proudly: ``Public 
disclosure of campaign contributions''--public disclosure of campaign 
contributions--``and spending should be expedited so voters can judge 
for themselves what is appropriate.''
  We are moving even further away from public disclosure because this 
bill would say that the IRS isn't even going to be able to collect 
information on who is donating to these 501(c)(3) organizations. So at 
a time when the American people are saying we need more accountability 
in our politics, in our government when it comes to this secret money 
that is out there, at a time when Americans want more accountability, 
this bill moves us towards less accountability. It will move secret 
money even further into the shadows and contribute further to a less 
responsive and less transparent democracy.
  I can hear the American people saying to the Republicans who are 
putting this on the bill, who are authoring this legislation: Are you 
new here? Are you new in this current environment, political 
environment, where we are so angry, as the American people, that we 
want to understand who is trying to hijack our politics, and you are 
going to move us in the opposite direction?
  People already feel locked out. We don't have to do more to push them 
in that direction. We need more accountability, not less. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill today.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons people feel locked out and left out 
is the cold notion that the government that is supposed to be 
collecting taxes and evaluating things according to the law, it turns 
out that they were acting for a malevolent reason. It turns out that 
they were going after the very people that they were supposed to 
protect. Turns out they were investigating based on religious belief, 
political belief, education belief, and so forth.
  So it is no wonder that the public feels disconnected from this. It 
is no wonder that they feel like they were trusting somebody that was 
just supposed to collect taxes and then they learned that they were 
being targeted. That is part of the locked out and left out feeling.
  There is another problem, too, with the logic of the argument that we 
heard just a minute ago, and there is somehow an implication that this 
information is supposed to be public. That is news. Schedule B isn't 
public today, and nobody is proposing that it be public. And, in fact, 
the courts have said it would be unconstitutional to make it public.
  So who is the beneficiary of this information, Mr. Speaker, if it is 
not the public, because it is not the public according to the law now. 
Who would be the beneficiary?
  Oh, the IRS. They are the only ones, Mr. Speaker, that have access to 
this information. The public doesn't have it. And we already learned 
what happened. The courts have said: You cannot tell the NAACP, you 
cannot make them reveal their donors.
  By that logic that we heard a minute ago, those organizations, during 
the civil rights movement, what would they have had to do? They would 
have had to disclose all of that information. And thanks be to God, Mr. 
Speaker, that the Court said no.
  Speech is special, speech is sacrosanct, and speech ought not be 
manipulated and intimidated by people with power.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SARBANES. I just wanted to respond to this idea that the public 
wouldn't benefit from this. Yes, there are opportunities to develop 
more disclosure of this information to the public, and certainly the 
Democrats would like to see that. But the public would benefit from the 
IRS' getting more information about where this money comes from because 
it is the IRS' responsibility to determine whether

[[Page 8712]]

these 501(c)(3) organizations are getting hijacked and taken over by 
special interest money--potentially foreign interest--and so forth. So 
the public would absolutely benefit if the IRS, which is the 
organization that has responsibility for determining whether you should 
have tax-exempt status or not, can fulfill that function on behalf of 
the public, and this would make it even more difficult for that agency 
to do its job in that respect.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion here about abuse. There was 
mismanagement. I was among those who indicated that the person or the 
two people most responsible should be relieved of their duties.
  It is also true, when we asked the inspector general, ``Did you find 
any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax-
exemption applications,'' the answer of the inspector general was, ``We 
did not, sir,'' period.
  There is another abuse here, and that is the abuse of 501(c)(4)s. It 
is scandalous. They are supposed to be doing social welfare. What has 
happened is they have used the mask of legality, many of these, to 
essentially become political organizations. That is the scandal.
  Essentially what the Republican Party is doing here is saying that 
they want to essentially pull a mask over what is scandalous.
  As Mr. Sarbanes said, this bill goes in the wrong direction. We need 
more disclosure, not less.
  The Achilles' heel in the argument of Mr. Roskam and others is this: 
A foreign government has to now disclose to IRS; a foreign individual 
would have to disclose a contribution that was illegal. They 
essentially want to eliminate that requirement in terms of this form 
altogether--eliminate it--so that there would be no way of knowing 
through that operation when there was a violation by a foreign 
government or an individual trying to influence the political process 
of this country.
  It is bad enough that domestic money reigns so supremely. Essentially 
what the majority here wants to do is add foreign operations to that 
process.
  You say that speech is power. But speech backed up by hidden money 
essentially undermines the democratic processes of this country. What 
you are doing today is coming forth here and essentially wanting to 
give a further imprimatur to this distortion of the democratic process. 
Money reigns too strongly in the political process, and you now 
essentially want to say: if it is foreign, all the better. It is 
terrible.
  It is terrible what is going on in this country today in terms of the 
power of money over the political process. You make it worse by 
essentially inviting foreign entities to join in that distortion of 
democracy in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The foreign money invitation is a straw man argument, and we have 
spent a lot of time on it talking about it this afternoon. But 
remember, all these activities are legal. Also remember that it is the 
Internal Revenue Service based on past practice that has developed or 
communicated an inability to hold confidential information close. That 
is important.
  It is also important to recognize that it was the Internal Revenue 
Service Commissioner who has essentially said: We don't need this 
information. We have had this debate and basically an admonition 
against the campaign finance laws. The minority's objection is largely 
directed to the United States Supreme Court and their conclusion in the 
Citizens United decision. That is all fine, well, and good.
  But let's focus in here on what we are actually talking about. What 
we are talking about is the lack of trust that we have in the Internal 
Revenue Service based on past activities to hold this information 
close, based on their projections about their challenges as it relates 
to cybersecurity and identity theft, and I think a general recognition 
of the chilling effect of what happens when you have an organization 
that chooses to target people based on their political speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have thoroughly debated this. I urge its 
passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5053, Preventing IRS Abuse and 
Protecting Free Speech Act is a common sense bill meant to help curb 
the rampant abuses of the IRS, an agency that has proven itself to be 
completely out of control in recent years.
  In April, Federal Judge David Sentelle said that the IRS can't be 
trusted, and that there is strong evidence that the agency violated the 
constitutional rights of conservative groups when it delayed their 
nonprofit status applications and asked inappropriate questions about 
their political beliefs.
  Currently, the IRS requires non-profits to submit a schedule B form, 
listing the names and addresses of their donors. According to the law, 
the IRS is forbidden from using this form for any purpose.
  If they are forbidden from using this form for any purpose then, why 
are they even allowed to ask for this information? This doesn't make 
any sense.
  This is another ``mistake'' waiting to happen. The mere presence of 
this form will make it easier for unscrupulous employees to target 
individuals for increased scrutiny based on their political beliefs or 
what non-profit they choose to give money to.
  I have seen this kind of political targeting first hand with my 
constituent Catherine Engelbrecht in Houston, Texas. She was targeted 
because she dared to attempt to start a voting integrity group called 
True the Vote.
  This kind of political targeting needs to stop. It's un-American and 
Unconstitutional.
  We need to reign in the IRS, and H.R. 5053 is a step in the right 
direction.
  And that's just the way it is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 778, 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. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SARBANES. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sarbanes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5053 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:

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING CONTRIBUTOR IDENTITY NOT TO 
                   APPLY IN CASE OF ORGANIZATION INTERVENING IN 
                   POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

       The amendments made by section 2 of this Act shall not 
     apply in the case of an organization described in section 
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which directly or 
     indirectly participates in, or intervenes in, any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SARBANES. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a debate here today on this larger issue of 
accountability to the American people when it comes to our politics, 
the way we govern, and the huge amounts of secret money that are 
pouring into our politics in a way that has left the average American 
feeling cynical and disconnected from their democracy. If anything, 
what Americans want to see is not less information and less 
accountability when it comes to politics, but more of it.
  Now, many people out there are just kind of hanging on by a 
fingernail in terms of any confidence or trust when it comes to our 
democracy and our politics because they see how Big Money has sort of 
taken over the conversation and that the megaphone that Big

[[Page 8713]]

Money has is hard to compete with if you are just a regular person out 
there who wants your voice to be heard. But it is made even worse when 
you don't know who is holding that megaphone when that speech comes in 
with all that money behind it and you don't know who the speaker is 
because that is hidden away because all of this money has become 
secret.
  One of the mechanisms that is being used by Big Money out there to 
kind of foist themselves onto our politics and push average Americans 
on to the margins of their own democracy is to go in there and try and 
hijack, commandeer, and takeover these 501(c) organizations. These tax 
exempt organizations end up really engaging primarily in political 
activity but are masquerading as these 501(c) organizations that are 
supposed to be engaged in tax exempt activities.
  So what this motion to recommit would do is pretty straightforward. 
It says that if one of these 501(c) tax exempt organizations--and I am 
reading now from the motion to recommit, from the amendment that would 
be made--is directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in 
any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate 
for public office, then in that instance, the IRS ought to be able to 
collect that information on who their donors are.
  Look, it makes sense. Taxpayers out there are saying: We understand 
that there are organizations that should be tax exempt because of the 
good work that they are doing, that they are actually social welfare 
organizations, the local Boys & Girls Club, organizations like that, 
providing a public benefit. That is okay. We will pay our taxes. But we 
understand that those organizations shouldn't have to because they are 
doing something that is good for the public and good for the community 
and so forth.
  But if an organization is getting taken over by some group that has 
got a political goal or political objective, then it shouldn't be 
entitled to that tax exemption anymore.
  That is what this motion to recommit says: You don't get to deny the 
IRS the kind of information that will allow them to make a judgment as 
to whether you deserve to have that tax exempt status. So that is all 
that we are trying to do.
  There are two things that the IRS needs to look at when they are 
deciding whether a C organization is engaged primarily in political 
activity. One is, where is the money going? How are they spending it? 
They will be able to see that. But the other is, where is the money 
coming from that is getting spent? Who is behind the thing? That helps 
them decide, is this organization really fulfilling tax exempt 
purposes, or is it just masquerading that way when, in fact, what it is 
doing is engaged primarily in political activity?
  So we want the IRS to have the information that allows them to reach 
a judgment as to whether an organization that is benefiting from this 
tax exemption really deserves to get that tax exemption. That is what 
this motion to recommit would do.
  We need more accountability, not less, in our politics. We need more 
information to decide who appropriately is benefiting from this tax 
exempt status.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to recommit, and I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit essentially says 
this: All kind of speech is sacred, and all types of speech should be 
protected, except certain kinds. So you can say whatever you want to 
say, you can say it however you want to say it, but if it is political, 
we are going to treat it differently. And that is the problem; that is 
absolutely the problem.
  H.R. 5053 is commonsense legislation that protects Americans from 
having their information improperly disclosed. It eliminates a 
burdensome reporting requirement for not-for-profits, and the IRS 
itself has indicated that it doesn't use the reported information for 
tax enforcement.
  There is absolutely no reason not to eliminate the Schedule B on the 
Form 990. Not only is it unnecessary, but the IRS doesn't have a good 
track record at protecting sensitive information or treating everyone 
fairly. We shouldn't be giving the Internal Revenue Service access to 
this information, especially when they don't need it to do their job.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion, ``yes'' 
on H.R. 5053, and 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. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, and the 
order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________