Late last week we learned of the apology by the Internal Revenue Service official about the targeting of certain information and applications for 501(c)(4) organizations in this country. Certainly the indication is that because of certain words generally considered to suggest that organization has conservative leanings, those organizations were targeted for different or additional treatment at the Internal Revenue Service. It was indicated there was an apology offered. This became a significant topic of conversation over the weekend by certain elected officials, certainly by my colleagues in the Senate but by the American people as well.

Last Wednesday, May 8, before this revelation was known, the Appropriations Subcommittee for Financial Services was holding its hearing--usually an annual affair—in which we were discussing the appropriations request in the President's budget for the Treasury Department. That gave me the opportunity to visit with Secretary Lew. Of course, the Internal Revenue Service is a component of the Treasury Department. My conversation with Secretary Lew during that hearing dealt with a related topic.

While I have great objection to targeting any group—liberal, conservative, Republican, Democratic-leaning—certainly the ability for us to examine an application is important. But none of us would expect or consider it to be appropriate that the Internal Revenue Service would treat one application different from another based upon its apparent political leanings.

While that is terrible enough, I also want to point out the topic I raised with the Secretary, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, last Wednesday. This comes from media reports and from complaints by organizations. The reason this seems so important is the admission that conservative groups were treated differently or one group was treated differently from another within the Internal Revenue Service lends credibility to press reports and to complaints by organizations across the country about their treatment by the IRS.

My questions to Secretary Lew, some of them that day but also submitted in writing since then, deal with a number of instances in which it was reported by an organization or a press report that the Internal Revenue Service improperly disclosed information about donors to 501(c)(4) organizations. Last April, the IRS apparently improperly disclosed schedule B donor lists on the form 990 of an organization called National Organizations for Marriage. It is an a 501(c)(4) group. While the form 990 is publicly available, tax laws and IRS regulations make clear that the schedule B—that is the donor list on the 990 is not to be released for 501(c)(3)s or (c)(4)s.

The issue was raised. The organization complained. It was reported in the press. Part of my inquiry to Secretary Lew is what has transpired since that point in time. Have the employees at the Internal Revenue Service who released this information been challenged for their actions? Have they been admonished? Have they been treated appropriately for what clearly seems to be an inappropriate release of private taxpayer information?

The second example was the IRS turned over several applications for nonprofit status, including the pending applications for tax-exempt status, for several groups. They were released and ended up in the hands of an organization called ProPublica. Again, while the applications for nonprofit status are available to the public after an exemption is granted, they are protected as tax return information while that application is pending. This organization then published that information, despite that that is what I understand to be a felony. Publishing unauthorized tax returns or return information is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $5,000 or both. Again, my question of the Treasury Secretary is that I have not been able to confirm any action has been taken, any recommendation from the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, that anybody be prosecuted for publishing private taxpayer information.

Finally, we learned earlier this year, again, of something described as an inadvertent IRS disclosure related to releasing one page of the schedule B showing donors to the Republican Governors Association. These are alarming in and of themselves and become more significant to me, having learned that there is a bias, a treatment different of one taxpayer over another at the IRS. While it is important for us to determine, and I am anxious to read the inspector general's report as to the findings about what occurred with the singling out of certain organizations for a different kind of treatment at the IRS, I also think it is important for us to pursue the issue of the release of information that comes from one organization's filing that is inappropriate to release and ultimately its being used by an organization that apparently has a different political perspective than the one whose application is pending.

Again, I would raise this issue that now we know something is wrong at the IRS, there is more to be discovered as we look at how this information was released. Were people who released it punished? Is there any pending criminal action against the individuals who published this information? I am surprised by the circumstance we find ourselves in. I never would have expected this from the Internal Revenue Service, which must be, needs to be, and has to be above the political fray.

The IRS can never be an instrument of any political party, of any administration, or of any political philosophy. All Americans have the right to assume that the IRS, which has great powers and consequences upon the taxpayers of this country, is operating in a neutral, fair, and appropriate manner.

The circumstances now present themselves in a way that we have to wonder about more than just these three examples. These three examples are ones now worthy of additional concern by Members of the Senate, and, even more importantly, by the IRS and individuals within the administration who are responsible for the management and governance of the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.

I have submitted a series of questions to Secretary Lew. As a member of the Appropriations Committee responsible for the Internal Revenue Service's appropriations, I look forward to seeing what those answers are and to make certain appropriate action is taken in regard to individuals who apparently have violated the public trust, with the understanding that all of us expect the privacy the Internal Revenue Service is to provide.

I want to once again outline that while we learned something over the weekend that is very troublesome, there may be much more to this story that has yet to be told, and I am anxious to see the answers that come from the Treasury Department in regard to the Internal Revenue Service.

In fact, I encourage all Members of the Senate to reach the same conclusion--no matter their political leaning or philosophical bent, whether Republican or Democrat—that the Internal Revenue Service with its tremendous enforcement capabilities and the tremendous consequences it has to the American people in the decisions it makes always be above the political fray.

Mr. President, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to outline an extended concern I have about actions at the Internal Revenue Service. I anxiously wait for the Treasury Department to respond and provide answers to our subcommittee, committee, and the full Senate.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, May 6, 2013, the California State Senate unanimously passed legislation calling on Congress to pass, and the president to sign into law, Startup Act 3.0 – the strongest, most comprehensive jobs and high-skilled immigration reform bill on the table in Congress. U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), authors of Startup Act 3.0, lauded the passage as an important step toward breaking the log-jam of inaction in Washington.

"At a time when our economy needs jobs first and foremost, America’s archaic government policies have us falling behind," Sen. Moran said. "We are losing talent and jobs by the day to countries like Canada, Chile, and the United Kingdom that are aggressively courting the world’s best and brightest. We must take this opportunity to pass Startup Act 3.0, or we risk losing the next generation of great entrepreneurs and the jobs they will create. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make certain the American dream can continue to be lived in America."

"Startup 3.0 would help keep America businesses competitive in the global market for talented innovators and entrepreneurs," Sen. Warner said. "I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill, which includes STEM visa and entrepreneur visa provisions that I support."

California Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, authored the resolution which states the following:

"The United States economy has been enriched by the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants from around the world. Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in one-quarter of all patent applications filed in 2006. Fifty-two percent of Silicon Valley startups between 1995 and 2005 were founded or cofounded by immigrants, generating $52 billion in revenues and employing 450,000 workers."

"The Startup Act means job opportunities for California families," California Senate Republican Leader Huff said in a statement. "According to a white paper released by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, it has the potential to add between 500,000 and 1.6 million new jobs for Americans over the next 10 years. California has one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation. California needs this opportunity."

Startup Act 3.0 is the only proposal introduced in Congress that creates the Entrepreneur Visa. It was re-introduced in the 113th Congress by Senators Moran and Warner, and is cosponsored by Chris Coons (D-Del.) Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

At a time when the Congressional Budget Office expects unemployment to remain above 7.5 percent through 2014 and the economy to grow by just 1.4 percent this year, the job creation potential of Startup Act 3.0’s Entrepreneur Visa translates to an additional 1.6 percent increase in GDP, or about $224 billion in economic activity.

A National Foundation for American Policy analysis of the top 50 venture-capital-backed companies in 2011 revealed that 24 were founded or co-founded by immigrants. At an average company age of 5.8 years and 153 employees, this small sample of immigrant-founded companies added 27 new employees per year, indicating the potential such companies – or even a sliver of Entrepreneur Visa companies – have for extraordinary job creation in the United States.

To access the full survey of Startup Act 3.0’s job-creating potential, visit www.kauffman.org/startupvisa, and follow the conversation on Twitter via #StartupVisa and #StartupAct.

Click here to read a one-pager on Why Startup Act 3.0 Matters.

Click here to visit the Startup Act 3.0 website.

# # #