Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I commend my friend from Minnesota for her very good bill. This bill is good policy. It is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, as she noted. It passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I was proud to vote for this piece of legislation.
However, at the time the Judiciary Committee took up the bill it also considered amendments--in particular, two amendments I introduced that are both relevant and germane to this bill. This bill is addressing the IRS. We have seen in the past year abuses from the IRS that sadly this body--the Senate--has been unwilling to address.
It has been the practice under the current majority leader to prevent the minority from introducing amendments, preventing the minority from having a voice, and so the only avenue for the minority to have a voice is to use tools such as denying consent to try to raise issues that are relevant to the American people.
When it comes to the IRS targeting of individual citizens, it was roughly 10 months ago the Inspector General at the Department of the Treasury concluded the IRS had wrongfully targeted conservative groups, tea party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day that news broke, the President of the United States said he was outraged. He said he was angry, and he said the American people have a right to be angry. That same day Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder said he too was outraged and, indeed, the President pledged to work hand in hand with Congress.
Ten months have passed, and in the 10 months that have passed we have discovered not a single person has been indicted. In the 10 months that have passed, many of the victims of this illegal targeting have not even been interviewed by the Department of Justice. In the 10 months that have passed, we have discovered that one of the lead lawyers leading the investigation at the Department of Justice is a major Obama donor who gave over $6,000 personally to support President Obama and the Democrats. In the 10 months that have transpired, Attorney General Eric Holder has turned down my request that he demonstrate the same impartiality, the same fidelity to the law that has been a bipartisan tradition for Attorneys General under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Indeed, as I pointed out to the Attorney General, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Richard Nixon arose, his Attorney General Elliott Richardson, a Republican, appointed Archibald Cox to investigate those allegations, free of political pressure. Likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General, a Democrat, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as an Independent Counsel to get to the bottom of it.
Sadly, when I asked Eric Holder if he was willing to follow that same tradition of impartiality, of independence, of fidelity to law, of insulating the Department of Justice from political pressure, the Attorney General gave a flat-out answer of no. He was perfectly content; he saw no reason why anyone should doubt the integrity of an investigation led by a major Obama donor.
As I asked the Attorney General, Would you trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon? Of course you wouldn't. So it is in the context of this abuse of power--this abuse of power of the administration--that rather than working hand in hand as the President has pledged, they have stonewalled it--that I introduced two amendments.
The first amendment was simply to make it a criminal offense for an IRS employee to target people based on their political beliefs. I will note the text of the language I introduced made it a criminal offense to willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate, or single out for the purpose of harassment any person based solely on the political, economic, or social positions held or expressed by that person or organization.
When the IRS targeting was revealed, it was condemned in bipartisan language. If that language was real, this provision should pass this body unanimously. To make the law reflect that it is criminal for the IRS to willfully target someone based solely on their political beliefs ought to be a proposition that passes this body 100 to 0. Yet I am sorry to say that when I introduced this amendment in the Judiciary Committee it was voted down on a straight party-line vote. Every Democrat who had given speeches against the IRS targeting, when given the opportunity to actually codify a prohibition against it in committee, voted against it.
Likewise, the second amendment I introduced was an amendment to stop the IRS from its attempt at codification of this persecution of political views. The IRS promulgated new rules that would have put in place its targeting of political views. The response from the citizenry was record-setting. Indeed, I would note what the ACLU said about the IRS's proposed rules. The ACLU--not exactly a bastion of rightwing thought--said:
The proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America.
The ACLU went on to say:
Most social welfare organizations--on both the left and right--serve exactly that function as they see it--the promotion of social welfare and community good. Based on their respective visions, they advocate for the powerless and the voiceless. They promote fiscal responsibility and good government. They serve as a check on government overreach, or as a cheerleader for sound public policy.
I can say in this respect that I agree emphatically and wholeheartedly with the ACLU. So I while I am perfectly happy to assent to the bill of my friend from Minnesota, if only the same reciprocal courtesy will be so and the remainder of the body will assent to these commonsense bills that make it a criminal offense to willfully target people based on their political views, and that keep the IRS out of the business of persecuting people for their political views.
I ask this body to stand with the ACLU. I ask this body to stand with the words of President Obama, if not the actions. I ask this body to stand with the American people to protect them from being wrongfully singled out by the abuse of power in the IRS.
Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, S. 2066, and Calendar No. 312, S. 2067 en bloc; I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to note very briefly to my friend from Minnesota that her bill is good policy. It is policy on which I hope this body can come together.
I will note a path forward. If my friend from Minnesota can prevail on the majority leader simply to allow a vote on the Senate floor on the two amendments I have introduced, then I will withdraw my objection. The reason I have to make this request is, under this majority leader, the minority of this Chamber is shut out of the ability even to have votes. I would note this request is less than what I asked in my unanimous consent. It is not a request to pass. It is simply a request that there be a vote, and if there is a vote, that gives an opportunity for every Member of this Chamber--Republican and Democrat--to go on record and to see if every Democrat in this Chamber is willing to do what every Democrat in the Judiciary Committee did, which is vote affirmatively against making it an offense for IRS employees to willfully target Americans based on their political views.
Any Democrat who votes that way can no longer stand and say they are upset about the IRS's abuse of power because once you voted against prohibiting, you have made clear that you are unwilling to do anything to protect the American people.
The requests from the Republican side to the majority leader to have votes scheduled fall on deaf ears. Perhaps my friend from Minnesota will have more sway with her party's leaders than we will. But in the interim, we are obliged to use whatever tools we can to press for the American people, to stop the abuse of power that is stifling their First Amendment rights. For that reason, I object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source