a facility is over $83,000. so the financial logic of focusing our services and efforts on early in-home intervention services has allowed us to then have these dollars go farther because we have reduced reliance on long-term. >> well, thank you. by the way, i think those are starling figures. i want to thank you for appearing before the committee and testimony as well. as i indicated the wish to reduce reliance on foster homes. in order to do that efforts to keep children safe as well as strengthen families like placements when the child cannot remain safely at home. oregon lowest rates of children

living in foster care homes. >> well, i think being from oregon one of the commit mentsz -- commitments is to reduce foster care not just group boards but across the board. use foster care as last resort, get priority to relatives. it's something that's well engrained in our culture and practice and relative placements are something that we prioritize over foster care group homes. i think you know, those are viewed as our last resort options and they're not viewed anymore as solutions for kids. >> well, thank you. my time is up.

>> thank you very much. i don't want to make this a tossing contest. that is out -- outstanding. the point in that is to say once and for all the flexibility you're talking about is going to be permanent, that's the point that we ought to go for the future so i really appreciate the good work that you're doing. let me see if i can get a couple of points. you, in effect, run and i'm not sure we've given you a chance to say what shfs -- services you think are most important. that's what we are going to have

to do here. find a way, all right, there's choices to to be made, these are the ones that are going to make big differences to families, and tell me, if you would what you think those services are. >> absolutely, thank you. the services that would help our services that would prevent or avoid intervention from child welfare, what we see -- and i don't have data or statistics to share. i can tell you that drug and alcohol is a very important service. a will the of families, you know, the system is set up to help them. they need help understanding where to go for them and how to get there how to navigate a court system, transportation system. services that assist with general challenges around poverty, child care. in oregon one of the primary

services that we have is we call them navigators, parent advocates that help participants -- parents navigate the system. we know that domestic violence is a challenge. add -- people that are experiencing domestic violence. i think those are some that i can think of offhand. >> you are going a terrific job. i look forward to partnering you. let me talk to you about kinship care. i look back at those debates in 1990s the seniors set then that they thought kinship care was going to make a big difference. i think by anybody's calculation

that first kinship care line has far exceeded what people thought were possible, and you gave numbers as well about the extraordinary role that kinship care place. i guess the question really becomes, if you had to name a big step on the future on the kinship care side what would it be? i sort of got these other choices. in one of our other hearings we heard about an grandparent who want today take care of a child and they were told because even though they had a wonderfully comfortable place to stay, it didn't have the exact number of bedrooms to they were completely disqualified. i don't know if i can turn my last set of ideas to get rid of mindless bureaucracy. lets say you get one choice for

the next step on kinship care. your work and the work of seniors and parents are everywhere. what's your next step? [inaudible conversations] >> we've been through those battles together. family believed deeply in family and they want to support those family options. we also know that that's one of the reasons we believe that it's important to look at the licensing standards in the state. i grew up in a family of six with three bedrooms. i shared a bedroom with my sister the entire life, to think that relative can't make due with a little bit lest space

doesn't make any sense. we need to take that into consideration. you'll be introducing goes a long way in helping to understand that the grandparents need those supported services to be successful and i think that that's what you and many of advocated for they need to know what services they exist which they can find through navigator programs, they need mental health services because of the children that come into their care they've been through many trauma. they need that kind of support. just because they're family, we don't leave them on their own. so i think that that's the next step. >> thanks very much for your good work. i just like to know, mr. chairman, as we go forward in a bipartisan way the ideas that this panel have offered these are not big expensive kind of proposals that you're making. nobody is going to say this is

going to break the bank. nobody is going to say that bureaucracy has to be built. you have a terrific panel. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you senator. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. that's my pleasure to be cosharing the foster caucus can senator and to work with everybody on the committee and thank you to each of you for being here. i'm very appreciative. i was thinking that it makes me feel old. i was back in the michigan legislature, reform that was was

put and moved the system quickly. i'm pretty frustrated that we are still talking about the issues. we have two sets of things. one is what happens and -- and the system failed you. and i'm sorry that that happened to you. the system just plained failed you. we have a situation where people get caught up in the system and then can't bring children home or kids can't come home. we have the other end which is very serious abuse and neglect. and so i'm very concerned that one way or the other foster care should be temporary and move people either back home. but if they're in foster care, back home or move to a permanent family. one way or the other instead of being caught in a limbo.

thank you. mr. chairman, i do want to say as we listen to all of this, the cost effectiveness that ms. williamson talked about, we are about getting ready to go into a debate on the budget where there's willingness to add money. we're not yet at a bipartisan agreement to defend our families, the things that we can do that will make a tremendous difference. i hope when we go into discussion about appropriations, we will remember what we had heard here. senator and i were very pleased to offer a private project to address mental health and substance abuse in the community. it's not 50 states. it wouldn't take a lot to make it 50 states.

and so i appreciate that we are able to move forward on a pilot. my fus -- frustration is there are things that we can do and should do. i hope they would wand to -- want to do it. i have questions -- >> yeah. >> regarding one piece of this that i worked on with senator portland to be cospon -- coresponsorring a bill. you know what can be done in that front i wonder if you can speak about that a little bit and therapeutic faster care

services. >> senator, i can't say that i can speak directly to therapeutic foster care but this is what i can speak to. what i can speak to is that if my phone had received actually in-home intensive therapy which i guess you could call it therapeutic he would not have went into foster care, right that's the intensive therapy that would be needed. you would say that foster homes need to be thoroughly trained about the use and young person they are going to be receiving in their household. they would need to know what has been going on with the youth where this comes from and how that's impacted them. i will tell you something as simple as removing a child from a home and placing them into another home is a dramatic impact they may not have had

any other types of issues, sometimes with the parents and sometimes not right but when they come into the system they develop all of these behavioral issues. ly have to go back and say -- i plead with you again. i'll go back and say that from my household that was a stable household, we were secured protective factors were in place, we knew, i knew exactly what was necessary and needed for my family, we did not get that, and because we didn't get that you me taxpayers paid an enormous amount of money for me to go through criminal court system, the family court system and attorney and attorney for my child and remain in foster care and still end up not getting any of the services that we needed as a family, destroying relationship in which the younger brother becomes with drawn and now he has to go into

therapy. i know you asked me about therapeutic in foster care, i can tell you that if that foster home does not get the very things that i needed in my home we will be looking at the same thing, so essentially across the board, families need what families need and i can echo every single thing that was said across the board for the families that i come in contact with and what they share with me about what they need. we work with parents foster parents and youth. i will say to you the system is not kind to anyone. >> i know my time is up, mr. chairman. i hope we will have the political will to do things that all of you are talking about because it's not rocket science. it's just a matter of being committed to do it. so thank you. >> thank you senator. >> thank you chairman hatch. there's a lot of work for us to do here.

we have to find a way to reduce the use of foster care settings and to adopt for our children. one of the key used throughout the series, what this means for us at congress, i believe, that we need to look as reducing the number of children in care and investing in families to prevent children from ending up in foster care to begin with in group settings as well. that's why i'm introducing a bill today the all kids matter act that givers -- gives states before they end up in the foster care system. for the 400,000 children we have built accountability and measures for states to reduce the number of children in grouped home. we know children do best as the panel has said when placed with individual families when placed

with their own family. i look forward working with the committee that will elevate the conversation of our nation's most vulnerable. >> you can watch the hearing at c-span.org. the senate is coming back into session after reassess -- >> live conch on c-span2. the third time in the last several days to try to pass it. i do so with the hope we can get this done tonight. i thank my colleague from ohio, sherrod brown who has been cosponsoring and supporting me

in this effort. i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working with us on this. we've been working for several weeks to get this cleared. most recently we had an issue with regard to legislation the democrats wanted to ad add to it. i think we've resolved those issues now. you want to thank robert duncan of the floor staff here for working so closely with us on this and i want to thank senator whitehouse for working with us on this. this is legislation that is both important and urgent. this week marks the one-year anniversary since the water supplies for toledo had to be cut off because of the fact that there were toxic algal blooms going into the water system. 500,000 people were told you can't drink the water. it was a crisis. i was up there. i was passing out bottled water along with others. and, unfortunately we're now seeing this year toxic algal blooms growing again. and we're seeing it not just near the water intake valve for the city of toledo but also near

other water intake valves where 3 million ohioans get their drinking water from lake eary. and by the way about 8 million people get their water from lake erie from other states, including michigan and other states represented here. i'm also concerned by the fact that we have other reservoirs in ohio that are seeing increased levels of toxic algal blooms. it includes the reservoirs in columbus. so it is time to ensure we're doing everything we toabl can at the -- everything we possibly can at the state and local level to make sure this issue can be resolved. finally i will say this is not just about drinking water. it is also about the recreational value of these waterways, including lake erie, which is an incredibly important economic asset for the state of ohio. our number-one destination for tourism. the toxic algal blooms create a real problem for the recreational value of fishing but also people being able to

use the beaches people being concerned about having their pets in the water people being concerned about the fact that their kids may not be safe, even being close to these bodies of water. so we have already passed legislation previously to help get the federal government more involved. about a year ago we passed legislation to get the e.p.a. but also noaa, usgs and other federal entities more engaged. we also passed legislation to try to help generally with regard to getting e.p.a. to give us what the standards standards ought to be in terms of the drinking water. now it is time to pass this legislation that requires the e.p.a. to put out a report on how mitigate the problem how to encourage the local community and incentivize the local community to do more in terms of ensuring the intake valves are in the right place to ensure that treatment is done properly, to provide the good science and best practices that only the e.p.a. can provide to be able to help with regard to the very serious problem that we face on lake erie and throughout the state of ohio. with that, mr. president what

i'd like to do is call up the legislation. i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to h.r. 212 which is at the desk and that the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 212, an a ct to amend the safe drinking water act to provide for the assessment and management of the risk of algal toxins in drinking water and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to froaght measure? -- to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motion be reconsidered and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: if the senator will withhold his motion. if ness no further debate on the measure, all those in favor say kauai. -- say aye. all opposed say no. the ice appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measure is passed. mr. portman: thank you mr. president.

i ask that the motion be -- the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the environment and public works committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1523, the national estuary program and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 15 23-rbgs a bill to amend the federal water pollution control act to reauthorize the national estuary program and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i further ask that the whitehouse amendment which is at the desk be agreed to the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. whitehouse: may i thank the senator from ohio for the way we have worked together on this. there was a slight toll to be paid on the majority side for getting the national estuary program passed. but it was one that we could live with. and i think that these are both good pieces of legislation. i'm glad that we were able to pass them together. if i could just briefly read from an editorial that was recently published by the "westerly sun." it is one of rhode island's cities. and they have south county, the area that westerly is in is south county. there is a david press scott who went out with a -- there is a david prescott that went out with a boat with a group called

save the day and took some folks down the river. to read from the editorial prescott shared a jarful of smelly green algae from the bottom of little narragansett bay to illustrate how lawn fertilizer engine oil and all manner of interesting items flushed down storm drains end up below the surface of what appears to be a bucolic center. if we went further up the watershed, we would actually see sthawf came right off the land down the downfalls. this is the stuff that we know is in our developed areas. we see stuff such as oil and gas and grease and sand an dog west. it eventually tends up here in the estuary and little narragansett bay. based on his study using water sarching prescott urged leaders from both states to develop

slow-motoring plans to better filter runoff, encouraging homeowners to reduce or eliminate use of lawn fertilizers and pesticides and enforcing no discharge laws. the newspaper then concluded "the wood pawcatuck watershed filters the water in our aquifers and provides a quality of life many envy. we need to protect all aspects of our watershed and treat the pawcatuck river and little narragansett bay with more respect than has been shown over the decades." i thank the "westerly sun" for those comments. the reasoning i read this is because the work of doing that upland planning that allows an estuary to be clean for swimming and fishing and boating and all of the things that rhode islanders and our summer visitors enjoy is through this program.

it shows a common link because of the algae problem that david prescott referred to with the algae problem that senator portman has seen in ohio. i want to thank david vitter, the senator from louisiana for his cosponsorship of this and for his work to get this through the environment and public works committee with me. i want to thank sherrod brown for cosponsoring this legislation. there is indeed in ohio, if i'm not mistaken, senator portman the old woman creek national he isestuary reserve. this will help support that. this is in huron ohio, on the south central shore of lake erie one of the few remaining examples of a natural estuary that transitions between land and water with a variety of habitats to tributarytory streams and barrier beach on the shores of lake erie. i am pleased that both of these measures have been able to proceed and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i would like to thank my colleague from rhode island. i was supportive of his legislation. i am glad that we got both bills done. i appreciate the fact that my colleagues realize the urgency of dealing with this blue-green algae issue which in many cases has become a toxic algal bloom that affects our drinking water affects recreation, affecting fishing and a significant issue in my state and others. i want to report on something that happened this week. i see senator hatch is here shall the chair of the finance committee. and he is away of this. but this -- and he is aware of this. but this week we had a hearing on an issue that's also urgent. it is one that's eminent because right now many u.s. companies are leaving our shores. this means that jobs and investments are leaving america and going to other countries. it's something all of us should be concerned about because it's rapidly accelerating. and i.t. it's because of one simple

reason: washington d.c., refuses to reform our outdate and antiquated tax code. it is washington's fault. unfortunately, the brunt of it is being borne by workers across our country. so i would like to put into the record if i could mr. president, without objection, the statement today that i had with regard to this hearing. it was a hearing again where we were able to hear directly from companies about the impact of the tax code. we were able to bring in companies that have left the united states, requiring them to determine why they left. unfortunately, it was eye-opening to the point that it requires us -- requires us to deal with our broken tax code, if we are going to retain jobs in this country keep investment in this kurntion and in fact being able to attract more jobs and investment to deal with our historically weak recovery we currently find ourselves in. i ask unanimous consent to include those measures in the record at this point. and i thank the chair for his indulgence this evening.

i yield back my time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of executive calendar 272 through 295. and all of the nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, and navy and that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of p.n. 601 and nh 64 1457bdz that all the nominations be confirmed en bloc, motion to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, any statements relating toed nominee nailts be printed in the record and the president immediately be notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc calendar number 198 1999, 200, 201 202 203 256 257 258, 259 260 261 is 262 264 265. that the senate rote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have t it. the nominations is confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar number 211, 216 249 251 254 255 20 271 a understand that the commerce committee be discharged of further consideration of pn-524 and that the senate vote without intervening action or debate on all of the nominations en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate that no further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be prescriptived in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye.

all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: calendar 250 252 253 the senate voation on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: object be 0? without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. on tuesday september

8, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination. calendar number 82, roseanne ketchmark to be u.s. district judge. that there be 30 minutes for debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, that following disposition of the nomination the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: object be -- is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask all the nominations received by the senate during the 114th congress first session remain in status quo not withstanding the provisions of rule 31 paragraph

6 of the standing rules of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate h. con. res. 72 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 72 providing for a conditional adjournment of the house of representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements related to the resolution appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the junior senator from west virginia the junior senator from arkansas and the junior senator from missouri be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today through july 8 2015. the presiding officer:

september -- the ... mr. mcconnell: mr. president i may have misspoken through september 8 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the upcoming adjournment of the senate the president of the senate the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law by concurrent action of the two houses or order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that as if in executive session the nomination of michael herman micheau of maine to be assistant secretary of labor for veterans employment and training sent to the senate by the president be referred to

the help and veterans affairs committees. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish the speech regardless of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president earlier today the senate finance committee finally and at long last issued its report on its bipartisan investigation of the i.r.s.'s treatment of organizations applying for tax exempt status. as you'll recall, this investigation began two years ago -- two years and two months ago after we became aware of allegations that the i.r.s. had targeted certain organizations for extra and undue scrutiny based on the group's names and political views. these were serious allegations. indeed they struck at the very heart of the principle one that everyone should agree on, that

our nation's tax laws should be administered fairly and without regard to politics or partisanship. despite the inherently political nature of these allegations the finance committee, which is exclusive legislative jurisdiction and primary oversight jurisdiction over the i.r.s. immediately opened a full bipartisan investigation into this matter. the investigation officially began on may 21, 2013, under the direction of former chairman max baucus and myself, when i was the ranking member. when senator wyden assumed leadership of the committee last year he agreed to continue the bipartisan work he had begun and i'm very grateful to him. this bipartisan cooperation has continued unabated since i became chairman in january of this year. that investigation concludes today with the release of our report. while much has been reported about the i.r.s.'s political targeting over the last two years, it is important to note that the senate finance

committee has conducted the only bipartisan investigation into the matter. consequently, i believe the report we've issued today will serve as the definitive account of the personal political biases management failures and other factors that led the i.r.s. to unfairly target certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status. once again the public has the right to expect that the i.r.s. will administer the tax code with integrity and fairness in every context. yet, for many conservative organizations that applied for tax exempt status during the last five years the i.r.s. fell woefully short of that standard. the committee's bipartisan report examines these events in great detail. let's take a look at what we now know after two years of exhaustive investigation. we know that the white house's focus on activities of

tax-exempt organizations intensified after the supreme court issued its citizens united decision in january 2010, culminating in many ways with president obama's wrongheaded castigation of the court in his state of the union address and continuing throughout 2010 until the midterm elections. the finance committee's report contains clear evidence that the i.r.s. and other agencies heeded the president's call. for example a few weeks after the president's speech before congress the i.r.s. made a pivotal decision to set aside all incoming tea party -- applications for special processing a decision that that would ultimately prove fatal to some of their applications. around that time the department of justice was considering whether it could bring criminal

charges against 501-c-4 operations that engaged in criminal activity. there were investigations opened noon conservative organizations. the i.r.s. met with both agencies providing input on the department of justice's proposals and investigations into the federal elections commission and organizations that were under investigation. these actions leave little doubt that when congress did not pass legislation to reduce spending on political speech, the administration sought alternative ways to accomplish the same goal. regardless of whether an explicit directive was given the president gave the order to target conservative groups at every opportunity the state of the union in press conferences and tv interviews. he did not send a -- quote -- "smoking gun" e-mail because he did not need to. he gave the order for everyone

to hear. his political allies at the i.r.s. followed those orders. the report clearly shows the conservative groups were singled out because of their political beliefs and gross mismanagement at the i.r.s. allowed this practice to continue for years. we know that the i.r.s. systemically selected tea party and other conservative organizations for heightened scrutiny in a manner wholly different from how the i.r.s. processed applications submitted by left-leaning and nonpartisan organizations. although the i.r.s. knew that the tea party applications were too dissimilar to be grouped under a common template, they continued to segregate them for screening and processing based on the presence of certain key words or phrases in the applicant's names or applications like -- quote -- "tea party," -- quote -- "9-12" and -- quote -- "patriots" as

well as indicators of political views that included being concerned with government debt, government spending or taxes educating the public via advocacy lobbying quo -- quote -- "to make america a better place to live" or being critical of how the country was being run. some tried to mitigate these facts claiming the i.r.s. similarly targeted left-leaning groups. this argument is posited in the additional democratic views. however, as our investigation made clear the i.r.s.'s treatment of conservative organizations was without question different from that given to left-leaning and nonpartisan organizations. true enough, some liberal organizations were also denied tax-exempt status during this period. however, with one exception that affected just two organizations all left-leaning organizations

that were, according to the democratic views improperly treated had participated in activities that legitimately called their tax-exempt status into question. the i.r.s. did not target these groups based on their names or ideologies. instead it evaluated their actual activities that were known to the i.r.s. activities that in many cases properly resulted in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status. that same deference in attention to detail was not offered to tea party groups and other conservative organizations. as a result, many of the tea party applicant groups gave up on the process and some of these groups cease to exist entirely based at least in part on the failure to obtain tax-exempt status. once again mr. president we know all this happened. it is spelled out in great detail in the committee's report. on top of all this, our

investigation revealed an environment at the i.r.s. where the political bias of individual employees like lois lerner, who was, once again the director of the exempt organization's unit, was allowed to influence agency decision making. the i.r.s.'s upper management gave ms. lerner free rein to manage applications for tax-exempt status. during our investigation the finance committee found evidence that lerner's personal political views directly resulted in disparate treatment for applicants affiliated with the tea party and other conservative causes. ms. lerner orchestrated a process that subjected these applicants to multiple levels of review by numerous components within the i.r.s., thereby ensuring that they would suffer long delays and be required to answer burdensome and unnecessary questions. lerner showed little concern for conservative applicants, even

when members of congress inquired on their behalf. allowing their applications to languish in the i.r.s. bureaucracy for as long as two years with little or no action. the i.r.s. began to resolve these applications only after some of the problems became public in 2012. but of course by that time the damage had been done. our investigation also uncovered a pattern at the i.r.s. of continually misleading congress about its handles of applications submitted by tea party organizations. specifically top i.r.s. officials, including doug shulman, steve miller, and of course lois lerner, made numerous misrepresentations to congress in 2012, in 2013 regarding the i.r.s.'s mistreatment of these groups. as if that wasn't bad enough, the i.r.s. impeded congressional investigations including our investigation by failing to properly preserve a significant portion of ms. lerner's e-mails

and then concealing the fact that the e-mails had been lost from the committee for months. mr. president, long before these allegations surfaced, the i.r.s. was already one of the most feared and loathed agencies of the federal government. virtua -- virtually all americans had some level of either apprehension or animosity toward the i.r.s., due in large part because of the power it had to impact the lives of everyday, hardworking taxpayers. then beginning at least in 2010 if not sooner, the i.r.s. made things even worse demonstrating a pattern of incompetence mismanagement political bias and obstruction toward congressional oversight. as a result, the agency has in many respects lost the public's confidence. there is a lot of work that needs to be done if the agency is ever going to restore that confidence and regain the public's trust.

the finance committee's report gives, i believe the best account we have of how that trust was broken. it spells out in great detail the organizational and personnel problems that plague the agency and allowed partisan agendas and political tribalism to influence important decisions. i hope all of my colleagues will take the time to examine this report and its findings. the report itself is over 400 pages long and includes roughly 5,000 pages of an additional -- of additional supporting documents. in other words all of my colleagues have a lot of reading to do over the august recess. i'll take a close look at the events detailed in the report and come together to work on legislative solutions that will prevent this kind of misconduct from happening again in the future. in closing i want to acknowledge the hard work and countless hours of time spent by the finance committee staff who

worked on this report. all told, they conducted over 30 exhaustive interviews and reviewed more than 1.5 million pages of documents. they also drafted numerous investigators of this report and performed countless other tasks necessary to bring this investigation to a close. the bipartisan committee staff whose diligence and devotion to duty made this investigation and report possible include the following -- john angel kimberly brant john carlo austin koon, michael evans christopher law jim lyons todd metcalf, harrison moore mark prager and tiffany smith. all of them deserve our gratitude for the work that they have put in. i also want to thank former chairman baucus for his work in starting this investigation as well as my colleague senator wyden who once again continued to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to get us to this point. i personally appreciate both of

those gentlemen very, very much. and i have to say it wasn't easy for them to sift through some of this stuff. but nevertheless, it's been a privilege to work with them. this is the first of a number of speeches i will probably give on this subject but hopefully it gives everybody a little bit of understanding as to why we are so upset and a little bit of understanding about the report that we've issued today and has been -- has been put on the -- on the webpage. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you mr. president. i want to thank the distinguished chairman from utah as members will see from the views that i'm going to articulate, we have some strong differences about how the facts ought to be interpreted but we worked very, very closely

together to ensure that there would be one bipartisan compilation of the underlying facts, and the two of us certainly agree that there is evidence of vast bureaucratic bumbling at the i.r.s. i will also say that a review of 1.5 million pages of emails and documents and interviews with more than 30 i.r.s. officials doesn't point to a single shred of political interference and i think as colleagues look at particularly the majority views and the minority views set them aside for a moment. the fact of the matter is, the fact of the report shows that no

order, no order was ever given to target political groups. now, i'm very pleased that we now have a bipartisan report conducted here in the congress, and that's why the bipartisan findings are especially important. and as i've stated, the findings contain absolutely no evidence to support the narrative that's been advanced by other committees some in the media the tea party groups were targeted by the i.r.s. because of their political views. my own view is that groups on the progressive side, groups on the conservative side, both of them were handled in a fashion that was unacceptable. they both were handled badly.

and so as we kind of get into these issues -- as i said, it was a very thorough and professional effort conducted to get out the facts i want to kind of set the stage with some background. under our federal tax laws, people can establish various types of tax-exempt groups, and there are different rules for each type. under section 501-c-4 an organization can be established as a social welfare organization. one of the rules for these social welfare organizations is they have to be operated exclusively for social welfare reform purposes. that's been interpreted since 1959 to mean, among other things, that the organization can engage in some political campaign activity, but it cannot be its primary activity. there's no precise meaning of primary for this purpose and exactly what constitutes --

quote -- political campaign activity is similarly unclear. another type of tax-exempt organization is established under section 527. a 527 organization can engage in an unlimited amount of political campaign activity, but there is an important distinction between -- because a 527 organization has to disclose the identity of its donors. finally, the type of tax-exempt entity americans are most familiar with, 501-c-3's are not allowed to engage in any political campaign activity. so now with that as some legal background let's unpack the events we looked at. in february, 2010, the i.r.s.

office located in cincinnati began processing the first applications for 501-c-4 status from a tea party group. before long, the office was as one i.r.s. employee is quoted as saying they were inundated with applications from tea party groups other conservative groups and some progressive-leaning organizations. the additional republican views estimates that of the total of 547 applications that were the focus of our investigation 65% were from tea party or conservative groups, 19% were from progressive organizations. to the i.r.s. employees in the tax-exempt organization division these applications raised questions about whether the organizations were planning to engage in more political campaign activity than the 501-c-4 law allows. we also tried to assess the

cause of the surge in applications. i think it would be fair to say no one really knows what was behind them. it might have been related to the supreme court citizens united decision in january of 2010 which knocked down some of the key limits on political campaign spending. it may have been related to the rise in citizen activism embodied in the tea party movement the occupy movement. in any event, there was a surge in applications. so now let's fast forward to may of 2013. at the conclusion of her remarks at an american bar association conference the director of the i.r.s. tax-exempt organization division lois lerner, disclosed that i.r.s. employees had selected 501-c-4 applications by groups with terms like tea party and patriots in their name for further reviews and she stated that the i.r.s. employees had done so simply because the

applications had those names in the title. lerner described this process of selecting cases for review because of a particular name, and i quote here, wrong insensitive and inappropriate. a few days later the treasury inspector general for tax administration, who is known as tigta, released a report that found that the i.r.s. used inappropriate material that identified for review tea party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention unquote. at the time of these disclosures from the i.r.s. and the inspector general, there was a very serious concern that the singling out of conservative groups by name may have been a consequence of political bias or motivation on the part of i.r.s. employees, possibly at the direction of political

appointees at the i.r.s., the treasury department or the white house. although the inspector general report found no evidence of political bias or targeting by the i.r.s., this was obviously a serious matter. the then-chairman of the finance committee, chairman baucus and the then-ranking member of the committee, now our chair senator hatch began an in-depth bipartisan investigation to assess the facts. the investigation continued mr. president, after i became chairman of the committee and it has gone forward under chairman hatch this year. so our bipartisan inquiry has been under way for more than two years. in the course of the investigation, the bipartisan committee staff has reviewed more than 1.5 million pages of documents and interviewed 32 witnesses. the inspector general at the committee's request has

undertaken several related but separate investigations. the results of the investigations are in the report the finance committee has submitted to the senate today. that consists of a bipartisan report prepared by the committee staff and represents the views of chairman hatch and myself. additional views of chairman hatch prepared by the majority staff, which i will refer to as the additional republican views and my own additional views prepared by the minority staff which i'll refer to as the additional democratic views. in total the principal parts of the report were 318 pages long plus a 90-page chronology of events and another 5,000 or so pages of attached exhibits. the report, i certainly hope, is going to clear away some of the smoke and cut through some of the rhetoric to ensure that all sides can see what really

happened. the report also makes a series of recommendations including bipartisan recommendations about how to initiate reforms going forward. i'd like to now describe the main conclusions that i draw from the report. first and foremost, mr. president, the i.r.s.'s handling of this matter was an unmitigated bureaucratic disaster. now, there were some extenuating circumstances. the citizens united decision had opened the floodgate to millions of dollars flowing into political activities which 501-c-4 organizations seeming to be one of the favored vehicles. as a result, the i.r.s. was facing a dramatic increase in the number and complexity of applications for 501-c-4 status. at the same time, the i.r.s. was working with vague regulatory standards that have not been updated since 1959.

so the staff at the i.r.s.-exempt organizations division has got one tough job. they were racing against a late-model mustang in a 1959 jalopy. now, even taking this into account, the i.r.s. handled the situation badly. essentially, the i.r.s. froze. the bipartisan report shows that for more than two years officials in the tax-exempt organizations division in both cincinnati and washington failed to develop a good system for processing 501-c-4 applications that seemed to present issues about the group's political involvement in political campaign activities -- potential involvement in political campaign activity. during that time, the i.r.s. staff and managers tried a variety of different approaches. they asked one of their experts on tax-exempt organization law

to focus on two test cases in effect models. that took more than eight months and nothing really came of it. then they set up task forces, and they tried what has come to be known as the infamous bolo or be on the lookout list. they tried to get more information from applicants by asking a long list of detailed questions. this approach actually backfired because of the volume and the inappropriate nature of the questions. so the bumbling and the bureaucratic paralysis just went on and on. by my county there were seven different efforts over more than two years to figure out how to handle these applications, and the first six all were for naught. by december, 2011, a total of 290 applications for 501-c-4 status had been set aside for

further review. two of these applications have been successfully resolved. not 200. two. it wasn't until the late spring of 2012, more than 26 months after the first tea party application had arrived in cincinnati that the i.r.s. finally started to get its act together setting up a triage group that was able to work through the backlog of applications more quickly. this process could and should have been handled better. senior i.r.s. leadership should have recognized or been made aware of the problem and should have stepped in much earlier to develop a system that provided fair and expeditious processing of these applications. in light of all this the bipartisan report concludes -- and i quote -- "between 2010 and 2015 the i.r.s. failed to fulfill its obligation to administer the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. at a time of rising political

activity and under increased political scrutiny and pressure after the citizens united decision, both senior i.r.s. executives including lerner failed to properly manage political advocacy cases with the sensitivity and promptness that the applicants deserved. other employees in the i.r.s. failed to handle the cases with a proper level of urgency which was symptomatic of the overall culture within the i.r.s. where customer service was not prioritized." these are all findings of the bipartisan report. further and i wish to make this clear, most of the applications caught up in this mismanagement were tea party or other conservative groups, including in the some cases small and relatively unsophisticated groups that didn't have the resources to engage in a protracted review with the i.r.s. and i think we ought to make no mistake about it. these groups deserve much better

treatment from their government. if there is any good news in all of this, the democratic views notes that there have been some positive steps. four key employees in the i.r.s. have failed to properly manage have been removed from their the backlog has been eliminated and all but ten of the applications have been resolved. the bipartisan report recommends several further steps that ought to be taken. it makes 16 recommendations including such reforms as promulgating objective criteria criteria prohibiting requests for donor lists creating a position of taxpayer advocate dedicated to assisting applicants for tax-exempt status and improving the system for tracking the resolution, with the target of resolving applications within 270 days. now let me turn to this question of political influence. beyond the indisputable gross

management another important focus of our investigation was to deal with these speculative charges and issues with respect to political influence. when the original inspector general report was issued in 2013 there was a concern that it looked like most of the groups were caught up in all this were conservative-leaning groups such as those with tea party in their names. in light of this, there was concern that we might be looking at something that was much worse than bureaucratic bungling. the concern was that there might have been an attempt to excerpt inappropriate political influence over the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status by disfavoring certain applications because of their perceived political views. in my view, that would constitute a grave and completely legitimate concern. not just for republicans not

just for conservatives but for every american. among the fundamental principles underpinning our system of government are equal treatment for all and inviolate right to freedom of speech and expression. both of these expressions are especially important when it comes to the i.r.s. which has great power that must be exercised in an even-handed fashion. perhaps of equal importance to an even-handed exercise of its authority it's incumbent on the i.r.s. to take great care to ensure against any perception that it's acting because of bias political or otherwise. in the committee's investigation, which as chairman hatch has noted went for more than two years the bipartisan staff care there i reviewed the evidence and in contrast to the bipartisan analysis and recommendations i just described in this instance the democratic and republican views have come to different conclusions. the additional democratic views

conclude that there is absolutely no evidence that there was an attempt to exert political influence. the additional republican views in contrast in the 120 pages trying to make the case that there somehow some way must have been political interference involved but without identifying any direct evidence, documentary or otherwise to support the case. so i want to explain now first by laying out the basic facts then by responding to the main points in the additional republican views. first, on the facts. according to the report, the staff found no evidence of involvement by the white house or by treasury department political officials none. the staff found no evidence that any political appointee in the obama administration was involved in the review of applications when the establishment of standards for

their review. none. as a side note, during most of the relevant period mr. president, the i.r.s. commissioner was mr. douglas shulman, who was appointed by president bush, and the principal officials responsible for the management of the relevant i.r.s. activities as well as lerner was a career civil servant who was named to her position as director of the tax-exempt organizations division by the i.r.s. commissioner mark eversome who was also appointed by president bush. in addition to finding no emails no memos and no other documents indicating there was an attempt to exert political influence, the report indicates that the staff asked every i.r.s. employee who was directly involved in the review of the applications whether there had been any attempt to exert political influence over the handling of applications or

whether they sought anyone else processing applications in a politically biased way. the staff asked 25 people. every single one of them said that there was no political bis a. -- bias. in addition the inspector general who spurred the investigation also found no evidence of targeting or political bias. let me repeat that. because there's obviously been some misconceptions. the 2013 inspector general audit found no evidence of political bias in 501-c-4 processing. this is discussed further in the committee's report including an email from the deputy inspector general at the office stating -- and i quote -- "there was no indication that pulling these applications was politically motivated" -- unquote. there's an email from the inspector general chief counsel stating that the tea party was not targeted.

the inspector general testified himself before our committee that no political motivation was found and his office further stated that no relevant communications were found coming from the white house or treasury. further, although more than conservative-leaning and progressive-leaning groups were affected several progressive organizations were subject to the same kind of gross mismanagement, long delays and inappropriate information requests that were experienced by the conservative organizations. the bipartisan report notes the terms like i quote here, progressive and acorn as well as terms intended to capture the various occupy wall street groups were included with tea party on the i.r.s. bolo list. the list came with tea party from day one. it shows the progressive groups

were subject to mismanagement delays and intrusive questions from the i.r.s. now, i'd also like to respond in several other particulars to the additional republican views. notwithstanding the plain fact that there is no evidence of any attempt to exert political influence over the process the additional republican views strive over the course of 120 pages to make the case that somehow, some way somewhere there was something sinister going on. this is done through a combination of innuendo speculation, and unjustified inference. the additional republican views make much of the fact that the head of the tax-exempt organization's division and the principal person responsible for the management issues involved, lois lerner, appears to have been a democrat with liberal views about some issues. much is also made of the fact

that the president and some congressional democrats want to impose tighter restrictions on campaign spending. put these two facts together, say republicans and it becomes clear in their view that the fix was in. however, the actual evidence to support this theory is just nonexistent. for example the republican views quote an email from merchandise learner's husband when on election day he had written in the names of the socialist labor candidates on his ballot. they quote an email from ms. lerner an email she wrote celebrating maryland's approval of same-sex marriage and they note what they apparently consider to be particularly suspicious that in the 1.5 million pages of documents the republican staff found no instance in which merchandise lerner members of her family or her friends -- and i quote -- " express positive support he

quotes about the republican party or the tea party." so what we have is ms. lerner's husband voted for socialists, she is a democrat, she supports same-sex marriage, and she apparently doesn't have a lot of republican supporters among her family. and you just have to ask yourself what is this supposed to prove? there is no evidence that any of these views were brought to the actual review of the application process, and that to me is what is paramount. granted, the republican views also quote various other emails in which ms. lerner expressly -- expresses support for president obama or is critical sometimes harshly so of the republican party and specific republican officials. to my mind, this is pretty much

irrelevant chitchat, just gossip. it's coffee shop stalk locker room talk. the democratic views point out that in no way did lois lerner allow her political belief to affect how she carried out her duties of the office. the republicans highlight husbander her views about the supreme court's citizens united decision. it's pretty obvious she didn't like it. she thought it unleashed a flood of money into the federal campaigns. it even suggests -- the republicans suggest it was nefarious that ms. lerner was closely following the citizens united decision. all of this tells really nothing. she was the head of the i.r.s. division responsible for applying the law regarding the appropriate level of political campaign activity undertaken by 501-c-4 organizations.

it would be odd in my view if she weren't closely following citizens united. it was an important decision with major implications for political campaign spending. it's not surprising to me that she didn't like the decision. 80% of americans felt the same way. i'm one of them. the republicans also were exercised that president obama various congressional democrats and the democratic party in general oppose the citizens united decision and supported tighter limits on campaign spending. no question, that's true. but the republican views make a remarkable leap. they say -- and i quote -- "overall it's apparent that the need for an explicit presidential directive to target the tea party and conservative organizations was rendered unnecessary by the white house's frequent public statements condemning political spending,

government agencies were acutely aware of the president's wishes and responded accordingly." so said the majority in their views. now, just think about that one. kind of put your arms around that. the president wanted to limit campaign spending, so the republicans on the committee would have us conclude various relatively low-level career government officials without any direct intervention whatsoever from the white house from the treasury department or anybody else in a position of political authority, they just sprang into action and engaged in a conspiracy of some sort to harass conservative groups. i guess it was almost conspiracy by osmosis. i find these extraordinary leaps to just defy logic. federal civil servants are

allowed a political opinion. the president of the united states is allowed to express views about the financial campaign system. some of ms. lerner's e-mails were in poor taste and it may have been bad judgment. but the only pertinent question here -- the only pertinent question -- is whether the political views of ms. lerner or other officials influenced the even handed administration of the law. and although the majority points to numerous embarrassing e-mails from ms. lerner, they cannot point to even a single one where she directed or encouraged employees to exercise political bias. now, the majority views also make another argument. they assert that significantly more conservative than progressive-leaning groups were affected by the dysfunction at the i.r.s. and that this in and

of itself proves that there was a bias against conservatives. this is a more serious argument. but when you unpack this one it too falls short. as i said before, it appears from the report that most of the groups that were affected were conservative but progressive groups were affected too. the bipartisan report indicates that progressive was on the bolo list along with acorn and other groups to indicate engagement. the report also shows the i.r.s. conducted workshops directing clees to look for terms like progressive and emerge as well as tea party. these groups suffered from the same sort of delays and intrusive questions that tea party and other conservative groups suffered from. nonetheless republicans on the committee insist that the fact

that more conservative than progressive groups were caught up in the i.r.s. dysfunction necessarily means that there was bias. however, this inference can be only drawn if there were equal volumes of applications coming in to the i.r.s. and conservative and progressive groups. there's just no evidence that this was the case. moreover, there is good reason to believe that in the wake of citizens united, the increasing volume of applications, particularly applications that raise serious issues about involvement in political campaign activity, came primarily from conservative-leaning groups. independent watchdogs have determined that 80% of political campaign spending by 501-c-4's was supported by conservatives and the i.r.s. staffs said they were inundated with tea party applications. if that's the case, it would be unsurprising that most of the

delays and other problems included conservative groups. they were mostly the ones who were applying. again, i'm not trying in any way to justify the poor treatment received by conservative groups, but the report found no evidence that the typical conservative application was any more likely to be mistreated than the typical progressive application and without such evidence, it's inappropriate to infer that there was bias. a third argument that the republican views asserts which also falls short is that there was a double standard. on the one hand, the treatment of the conservative groups caught up in the 501-c-4 dysfunction and on the other hand the treatment of some nonprofit groups supported by democratic senators. republican views cite three cases in which democratic senators asked that the review of application for tax-exempt

status be expedited and where that apparently was done. they contrast a relatively quick resolution of these cases to the delay experienced by tea party and other conservative applicants for 501-c-4 status. on the face of it the facts of the three cases relied on do not support the republican inference that there was a double standard. in the first place, according to the information in the report, the three groups supported by democratic senators that applied for 501-c-3 status under which they can engage in no political activity. further in two or three cases there is nothing in the report indicating that the case was particularly difficult or controversial. in the democratic views it's noted that the third case was a request for the expeditious consideration of an application for tax-exempt staw by the one boston foundation in order to

facilitate fund-raising and assistance for those who were the victims of the boston marathon terrorist attacks in april 2013. in that case it appears from public reporting there was an unusual legal issue and that in part at the request of various public officials the i.r.s. did in fact cut through some red tape and resolved the issue so that this organization could get up and running quickly. as far as i know, there are no allegations that the one boston foundation was anything remotely like a political organization, and i'm not aware of any partisan or other controversy surrounding it. and i was surprised by the republican views that apparently think it was inappropriate or unfair for public officials to encourage the i.r.s. to help get the organization up or running or that the i.r.s. did anything wrong by handling this case well. to put it more pointedly, i was

surprised that this was considered to be in any way relevant to our investigation. as the bipartisan report makes clear, the i.r.s. took far too long to review 501-c-4 applications from tea party and other groups and it subjected many of the groups to unnecessary delay and inappropriate questioning. but the fact that the i.r.s. was able to handle a few very different cases reasonably well does not show a double standard. in effect, the republican views compare apples and oranges. before closing, i want to briefly address several other matters covered in our report. the first is the crash of lois lerner's hard drive in 2011 which as a resulted in the loss of some e-mails that may have been relevant to our inquiry. senator hatch and i learned about the hard drive crash in june 2014 just before we were

originally planning to release the committee's report. the two of us immediately asked the inspector general to investigate to determine whether there was evidence of intentional wrongdoing and whether any of the lost e-mails could be recovered from other sources. the inspector general conducted a thorough investigation which took more than a year. here's what the inspector general found and is explained in the report: although we do not know why her hard drive cashed, there is no evidence that it was crashed intentionally. the inspector general was able to recover about 1,300 additional e-mails. and the inspector general found that some potentially relevant backup tapes had been unintentionally mishandled and then destroyed contrary to the document retention policy that the i.r.s. put in place after our investigation began. these findings have led to a

significant amount of criticism about the current i.r.s. commissioner mr. john koskinen. before closing, i want to make a couple of points in response to the criticism of commissioner koskinen. first, it's important to remember that the principle problems that we have been talking about -- in other words chairman hatch and i have been talking about these issues here for probably close to an hour. it's important to remember that the principal problems we've been talking about regarding the i.r.s.'s handling of applications for section 501-c-4 status all occurred before mr. koskinen came on board as i.r.s. commissioner in december of 2013. in fact, during the entire period covered by the original 2013 inspector general

investigation, the i.r.s. commissioner was mr. doug shulman, as i stated appointed by president bush. although mr. koskinen inherited these problems, he did not create them. second looking at how the i.r.s. handled the hard drive crash, i do think mr. koskinen waited too long to inform the finance committee and that the senior i.r.s. leadership could have done a better job keeping track of the backup tapes. that said, there is zero evidence that these mistakes were politically motivated and there is no reason to believe that the potential loss of some of lois lerner's e-mails compromised the investigation. we recovered thousands of e-mails covering this period from the relevant people corresponding with ms. lerner. and even taking the potential

loss of some e-mails into account, the bipartisan report concludes -- and i quote -- "the large volume of information we have received gives us a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the conclusions reached during our investigation." looking forward commissioner koskinen is a skilled and experienced leader. i'm confident that he is going to work closely and cooperatively with chairman hatch, with myself, with democrats and republicans on the finance committee to continue to improve the operation of the i.r.s. exempt organizations division. we also asked the inspector general to investigate four other cases in which there have been allegations of political motivation by the i.r.s. one involved the white house official who referred to a specific company when criticizing the use of tax

loopholes. the question was whether he had received inside information from the i.r.s., and of course that would be a serious violation of the law. the other cases involved conservative groups who unfortunately had some of their confidential tax information inappropriately made public. these cases have generated intense congressional interest and lawsuits. the underlying concern similar to the concern about the handling of the 501-c-4 applications was the serious and legitimate worry as to whether there had been an effort to exert political influence over the i.r.s., in effect to use the i.r.s. as a weapon against conservatives. here based on the information in the report, the inspector general's investigation have led to clear conclusions. the inspector general investigation, the white house official found that he did not receive any confidential information from the i.r.s. he apparently was just shooting

from the hip which may be bad judgment but it's not a crime. in the three cases where confidential taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed was because of unintentional mistakes by low-level i.r.s. employees some of which have been subject to administrative discipline. these mistakes were regrettable. the staff have made bipartisan recommendations to prevent them from reoccurring. but the bottom line is in each of these cases there was no effort to exert political pressure. so in summary mr. president our report tells a regrettable story. many applicants for tax-exempt status were treated badly. they were treated in unacceptable way and they deserve better service from their government. but in the end, this is a story

about gross bureaucratic dysfunction. it's not about an attempt to exert political influence over or inject political bias into how the i.r.s. does its job. further, the main culprits are gone. the system has been improved. the committee has made a series of bipartisan recommendations to improve it. further, i think it is fair to say, mr. president that both democrats and republicans on the senate finance committee chairman hatch has worked very closely with me on this, were committed to making sure nothing like this vast bureaucratic bungling ever happens again. so we here in the senate have more to do. we're going to have to do some hard thinking about one of the underlying issues, which is the

issue of money in politics, including in the context of tax-exempt organizations that are not supposed to be engaged primarily in political activity. as part of this -- and i respect the views of chairman hatch and others who may disagree -- i think the congress has got to come up with better standards. we ought to set again in a bipartisan way to overhaul the 1959 regulatory jalopy. just put your arms around that one. here we are in the digital world. so many changes in our country. we've still got the basic 1959 approach to regulating these issues. and we ought to establish rules of the road that fully respect first amendment rights and also give all organizations be they progressive, be they

conservative be they in between, whatever they are give all groups better guidance about what they can and cannot do given their tax-exempt status. my own view is when it comes to money and politics, you really can't get enough transparency. i hope we'll be able to work on those issues in the future. in fact, last time we had a bipartisan bill here was in the last congress and senator murkowski, our colleague from alaska joined me in a bill that said all major spending from everyone wherever you were, progressive, conservative, essentially had to be disclosed. so my own view is we need more transparency not less, and mr. president, i have some brief remarks to make on another subject unless our chairman wants to make further comments, i will yield on this topic and

let the chairman comment and then i would ask unanimous consent after the chairman is done mr. president to speak. i'll be certainly no more than ten minutes on another subject after the chairman's had a chance to talk. mr. hatch: i thank my colleague. maybe i should speak. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank you mr. president. look, all i think people can make up their own minds about this. read the doggone report. you cannot read that and just say oh, brush it off, there is just one rogue employee there. there are all kinds of employees that are mentioned in the report. you can't just wipe it off because -- because we were unable to interview the treasury department or the whitehouse. you can't just wipe it off when you look at all the information there and say well, this is just a bad apple in the i.r.s. and

that and that, you know, it was an ordinary course of be events, they mistreated liberal groups or progressive groups they're called as much as they did the conservative groups. there's no question they didn't. there were very few progressive groups. it's easy to understand which ones they were looking at. my gosh, some of those have had criminal accusations against them. there are only a few of them, compared to the wide group of people who were on the conservative side that they knew were conservatives and that they put on the bolo list, be on the lookout list. now, yes we weren't able to get in the big treasury department, we weren't able to get into the white house and what they did or didn't do in these areas.

i don't think you can read this report and conclude that this is just a terribly dysfunctional i.r.s. i think you can agree with that. we all knew that before we had this report. this is a very serious report. and by the way the report is signed off by both democrats and republicans. and you can't just wipe it away and say well, this is just a bunch of bad apples at the i.r.s. lois lerner took the fifth amendment. she was set to testify in front of the house. she had a right to do that. i would be the first to stand up for that right. but you have to ask yourself, well why would she do that? the fact of the matter is that it was a dysfunctional i.r.s. that it was being managed by people who were bright enough to

not be dysfunctional. i'm not going to say much more because we'll answer every one of the distinguished senator's approaches here this evening. i just suggest read the report. it's signed off by democrats and republicans. and you can't just blow it off by saying well, this was just a dysfunction at the i.r.s. we all know the i.r.s. is dysfunctional. and part of the reason it is is because the i.r.s. is supposed to represent every citizen in this country in a fair and balanced way. it was governed by a union. you can't even fir somebody at the i.r.s. for not going through all kind of hoops and then you're going to have a rough time firing them, no matter how bad they are. we all know that. we've seen it year after year

here. we just brush this off like it's just one bad apple there. well, there are more than -- there are more apples there than lois lerner, i'll tell you that. now, all i can say is that this report is a very serious report, it can't just be brushed away. it's a serious report for many reasons. one reason is that conservative groups by a vast majority were mistreated and mistreated in an election contest and years where they were trying to make a difference. i'm not saying that i agreed with them. all i can say is they had a right to get their 501-c-4 status determined and not just dragged out past the election.

that alone is something that ought to cause everybody in this country to be a little bit frightened, that the i.r.s. can do that. i don't want it done for liberal groups that way. if the republicans were ever totally in control of the white house and the justice department and the i.r.s. and the treasury i wouldn't want anybody treated like this group like these conservative groups were treated. i'd probably differ with some of those conservative groups myself that they deserve to be treated with respect and can dignity. and under the law -- and they were not and you can't just brush it off on just one person being out of line. i'm very concerned about it. i suggest people read the report read the report. there were some things we weren't able to look into.

i wish we had been able to. i think we might have been able to more definitively lay this out. to make a long story short read the report. it's something that my colleagues on the other side agreed to. then read the minority views. then read the majority views. see what you think. i'll tell you this -- you've got to be alarmed the most dangerous agency in our government happens to be the i.r.s., the internal revenue service. they can break anybody overnight. people are afraid of the i.r.s., and with good cause. and when you see what happened here you're going to have to be even more fearful unless we can straighten this mess up. and i intend to see that it's straightened up or straightened out, that may be a better way of saying it. i'm very concerned about this.

we had people who were mistreated. i might not agree with them, but they were mistreated. and in comparison with the liberal groups, you would have questions about them anyway, some of them. we'll i'm sure debate this even more. i don't want to take more of the senate's time tonight. but i am extremely concerned because i don't believe there's an agency in government that causes more fear in the hearts of people than the i.r.s. and when you see the mess that they did and you can't just chalk it up to just a few rogue employees that are at the i.r.s. you see the mess that they did you have to stop and think my gosh, is this the way our country is run? is this the way the i.r.s. is

run? can we do anything about it? or do we just have the citizens just sit back and forget about it? well we're not going to let you forget about it. this is a very, very important report. i think the majority and minority views are worth reading. i don't see how you can conclude at the end of it that there's not a tremendous problem there. and keep in mind, when the inspector general investigates, if he doesn't find, you know, a a -- a -- an absolute let's say he doesn't find anything. they're not going to pick on anybody. i've got a lot of respect for the inspector general at the i.r.s. i remember him being criticized because apparently he's a republican. but he's not going to accuse

anybody that he doesn't have the evidence on. in this case, there's a whole accumulation of evidence that you cannot ignore and just brush away under the guise of this is just a rogue person. there were other people there as well who caused this calamitous set of events, and we've got to not just brush it away. we've got to look at it and we've got to find a way straightening out the i.r.s. so it is not a partisan institution, which most americans believe it is. and almost every conservative believes it is. now, we're making some strides there, and i'm going to continue to put pressure on to see that we make the strides but i've got to say ask the american people out there what they think. read the report. then we'll talk about it some more. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'm going to be very brief. and i want to thank my colleague from arkansas for his paish yens. a couple of things for home, and i know he's got stuff he has got to have done as well. mr. president, i was down here on the floor last night talking about the need for actually getting some real progress to fix the mess that the wildfire budgeting system in our country has become, and i noted there have been several proposals offered including one by myself and senator crapo called the wildfire disaster funding act referred to the budget committee. there have been hearings held, there have been speeches given about the need to fix the broken system to provide federal agencies with the help they need to battle the devastating blazes year in and year out. senator crapo and i have introduced a bill to fix this

broken system, and we need to get some real results. despite all the talk, there hasn't been any real action. 24 hours later and i'm back, pleased to be able to stand here tonight to say several of our colleagues have heeded my call, and tomorrow i'll be putting into the congressional record a colloquy with all of our signatures democrats and republicans, committed to resolving this issue in the fall and we have been working since last night to set aside a way to work together this summer with the fires in the west literally fueling the hunger to take meaningful steps to finally end fire borrowing and give the

resources they need to prevent these infernos from igniting in the first place. just today the fire service released a report that makes a point that for the first time in its history the forest service is routinely spending more than half of its budget battling wildfires. they note the cost of fire suppression could well increase to almost $1.8 billion by 2025. this vicious cycle of underfunding prevention work while huge infernos burn up, federal fire suppression accounts is going to get worse and what we're going to see as it does is the forest service becoming the fire service. that's not in america's interests. it's particularly damaging to my part of the country and i'm pleased to be able to say that in the last 24 hours, we have made some real progress in addressing this challenge and there is a commitment on both sides of the aisle now here in the senate to get this fixed this fall. now, finally mr. president i

just want to take a few minutes in my capacity as ranking democrat on the committee of finance to talk about the upcoming 80th anniversary of a great moment in our country's history, the creation of the social security program on august 14, 1935. and i'm very pleased to be joined by all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle in the introduction of a resolution demonstrating how much we appreciate this historic anniversary. thanks in large part to social security old age in america is no longer synonymous with hardship. and american workers have the great comfort of knowing that if the worst happens, social security will be there for them and their families. i remember how essential social security was to many of the older people that i worked with when i was director of the oregon gray panthers.

however, eight short decades ago, seniors often lived in poverty and hardworking americans had no guarantee of economic security. our country was in the throes of the great depression, unemployment topped 20%. you had bread lines for blocks and the homeless population was growing. there was no social safety net no life line that offered some measure of dignity. if a person lost their job became disabled, suffered the loss of a family member, they were on their own, there was nowhere to turn. life was difficult for many americans, but none more so than the poor, the elderly or the disabled. tragically many aging and disabled americans without family to care for them ended up destitute or on the street. america is now a different place, thanks in no small part to the protection of social security. it's one of the strongest

threads in america's safety net, protecting the well-being of millions, keeping millions more out of poverty. this year nearly 60 million american workers and eligible family members will receive nearly $900 billion in retirement survivors or disability benefits. among older social security beneficiaries, more than half of married couples and nearly three quarters of individuals get the majority of their income from social security. as of 2014, 150 million americans had earned the protection of disability insurance, a tremendous accomplishment. well over 100 million workers can go through their days with the confidence they're financially protected in the event of a catastrophe because of social security. also the program provides indispensable benefits to nearly seven million children. without those benefits, many of

the youngsters would face dire circumstances after the death or disability of a parent. none of this could have happened without the continued support of the congress. time and time again members have come together on a bipartisan basis to ensure this vital program remains strong. the 1939 amendments to social security expanded retirement benefits. in 1954, the congress passed amendments that provided protection for workers who became disabled. the social security amendments of 1980 and 1983 also made important changes that helped ensure the program's long-term viability. mr. president, social security is one of america's great economic successes. the program is robust, and in my view, there is big bipartisan interest in keeping it that way. so i look forward to working

with my colleagues, the ranking democrat on the finance committee, so that on both sides of the aisle we work together to ensure that social security continues to thrive for generations to come, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: mr. president i'd like to talk about s. 1707 which will name the federal building at 617 walnut street in helena arkansas as the jacob

tr eber federal building and united states courthouse. the honorable jacob treber paved the way on the federal bench as the federal jewish federal judge. his work fighting injustice and laid the foundation for equality with the lasting civic legacy that continues to impact our country. born on october 16, 1853 in rashkow, prussia, he escaped the growing anti-semitism in prussia and moved to the united states. in a few short years they established their homestead and family store in helena, arkansas. in 1973, he began to study law and three years later entered the arkansas bar. in 1897, he was appointed u.s. attorney for the eastern district of arkansas in little lock. three years -- little rock. three years later in 1900,

president william mchenry appointed him to the federal bench where for 27 years judge treber served the eastern district of arkansas. judge treber was committed to equal justice for all and made rulings for african-americans and women. he had foresight. many of his rulings were important to civil rights and wildlife conservation. he also was committed to his local arkansas community and served as an elected officials on the helena city council and as the flitches county treasurer. -- phillips county treasurer. he played an important role in saving the old state house and establishing the arkansas state tuberculosis is anker yum. in honor of judge treber, senator cotton and i and senator coons have introduced legislation to introducing the

building in little rock be the judge treber courthouse and post office. it will stand as a symbol of his important work not only for the people of arkansas but the entire united states. i want to thank senator boxer and senator inhofe for helping us advance this in a timely fashion. also the staff of the e.p.w. and the cloakroom staff that does such an outstanding job here. and so with that mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 1707 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1707 a bill to designate the federal building located at 617 walnut street in helena arkansas as the joseph tre bencher federal become and

post office and united states courthouse. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and patched, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. mr. boozman: mr. president i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: