S6428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

While I support the motive behind this legislation and believe ensuring the safety of 

state and local courthouses is a noble goal, I 

believe the responsibility to address this 

issue lies with the state and local governments. I do not believe the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to provide training for local and state 

law enforcement or to provide security 

equipment to state and local courthouses at 

the federal government’s expense. Further, I 

believe the training program this bill authorizes duplicates existing federal training 

programs. 

First, S. 2076 authorizes the Director of the 

State Justice Institute (SJI) to carry out ‘‘a 

training and technical assistance program 

designed to teach employees of State, local, 

and tribal law enforcement agencies how to 

anticipate and respond to violent encounters 

during the course of their duties, including 

duties relating to security at State, county, 

and trial courthouses.’’ The purpose of SJI is 

to further the development and adoption of 

improved judicial administration in state 

courts in the United States, which is not a 

federal responsibility under the Constitution. States are responsible for the administration of their courts. Adding an additional 

allowable purpose to SJI merely broadens 

the unconstitutional reach of this agency. 

Further, even though S. 2076 does not provide 

any additional funding for SJI the agency 

could use the authorization of additional responsibilities as a basis for requesting future 

appropriations from Congress. 

Second, the SJI training program authorized in this bill potentially duplicates existing federal training programs available to 

state and local law enforcement. The following programs already exist: 

1. U.S. Marshal Service’s National Center 

for Judicial Security, Office of Protective Intelligence; Shares threat information with 

state and local law enforcement agencies and 

provides training to state and local law enforcement officers who provide courthouse 

security. Also, provides guidance and support to district offices and Judicial Security 

Inspectors (JSIs) conducting high threat proceedings and protective responses. 

2. U.S. Marshal Service’s National Center 

for Judicial Security Fellowship Program; 

Provides a three-month training program for 

state, local, and international ‘‘court security managers.’’ 

3. FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 

division and Law Enforcement Officers 

Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) programs; 

UCR and LEOKA collect data on law enforcement officers who have been killed or assaulted in the line of duty. The FBI then 

conducts LEOKA training programs for state 

and local law enforcement personnel based 

on this data. 

4. FBI’s Law Enforcement Training for 

Safety and Survival (LETSS) program; 

Trains FBI, police officers, and international 

law enforcement personnel in survival techniques. 

5. FBI Field Police Training program; Includes firearm training for state and local 

partners. 

6. FBI’s Law Enforcement Executive Development Association program; Trains heads 

of state and local law enforcement agencies 

with between 50 and 500 personnel. 

7. Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) program; Trains 

officers in dealing with violent situations, 

including those they face outside of buildings and in urban settings. Includes core 

classes such as ‘‘Basic Active Shooter Level 

I and II,’’ ‘‘Terrorism Response Tactics—Advanced Pistol,’’ ‘‘Combat Rifle,’’ ‘‘Combat 

Pistol,’’ ‘‘Advanced Rifle Marksmanship,’’ 

and ‘‘DOD Sniped Course.’’ 

8. Community Oriented Policing Services 

programs (COPS); 

9. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) programs; and The Survival Shooting Training Program (SSTP) under FLETC 

is an eight and a half day training program 

that teaches law enforcement officers (LEOs) 

‘‘how to employ several types of weapon systems found in most police arsenals (the service handgun, shotgun, submachine gun and 

rifle). The LEOs will develop marksmanship 

skills as well as all pertinent gun handling 

skills (drawing from the holster, reloads, immediate action, movement and more) at a 

rapid yet controlled pace. Ultimately, the 

SSTP prepares the LEOs to survive a deadly 

force confrontation through competent decision making and confident gun handling 

skills.’’ The Reactive Shooting Instructor 

Training Program (RSITP) under FLETC 

trains law enforcement instructors in handling their firearms to survive high-stress 

situations. 

10. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ National Firearms Examiner Academy 

programs. The training program includes 

training that enables state and local law enforcement officers to identify armed gunmen 

and increase their ‘‘margin of safety.’’ 

Finally, this bill gives state and local 

courthouses priority in obtaining excess federal security equipment for free from the 

Government Services Administration after a 

short request period is given to federal agencies. The courthouse would only pay the 

costs of transporting the equipment. Equipment purchased by the federal government— 

and thereby the American taxpayer—should 

be utilized by the federal government if at 

all possible. If not, federal agencies may 

have to purchase equipment they otherwise 

could have obtained for free but for the state 

and local governments taking it. Also, giving 

states and localities the ability to obtain 

this equipment for free may lead to situations where they acquire the equipment simply because it is free, not because they truly 

need it. 

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution 

enumerates the limited powers of Congress, 

and nowhere are we tasked with funding or 

becoming involved with state and local court 

security. I firmly believe this issue is the responsibility of the states and not the federal 

government. However, if Congress does act in 

this area, we should evaluate current programs, determine any needs that may exist, 

and prioritize those needs for funding by cutting from the federal budget programs 

fraught with waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication. 

Congress must start making tough decisions rather than continuing to kick the can 

down the road, leaving our children and 

grandchildren to clean up the mess. It is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the future standard of living of our children by 

borrowing from future generations. The U.S. 

national debt is now over $16 trillion. That 

means over $50,000 in debt for each man, 

woman and child in the United States. A 

year ago, the national debt was $14.3 trillion. 

Despite pledges to control spending, Washington adds billions to the national debt 

every single day. In just one year, our national debt has grown by $1.7 trillion or 

11.8%. We cannot continue to support federal 

funding for programs and initiatives that are 

not federal responsibilities as dictated by 

our Constitution. Otherwise, we will never 

get our fiscal house in order. 

Sincerely, 

TOM A. COBURN, M.D., 

f 

U.S. Senator. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND 

501(c)(4) ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our representative form of government is 

based on the premise that citizens who 

vote in our elections are informed 

about who is seeking to influence elections. Sadly, we continue to see that 

information obscured by organizations 

who are misusing our tax code for political gain. 

As we have discussed on this floor 

many times, the Supreme Court opened 

our campaign finance system to a torrent of unlimited and secret special-interest money in Citizens United. But 

even the Supreme Court acknowledged 

in Citizens United that disclosure is 

important: 

‘‘[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can 

provide shareholders and citizens with the 

information needed to hold corporations and 

elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political 

speech advances the corporation’s interest in 

making profits, and citizens can see whether 

elected officials are in the pocket of socalled moneyed interests.’’ Citizens United v. 

FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010). 

Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of September 13, 

spending on political advertising by 

groups that either do not disclose, or 

only partially disclose their donors, 

has increased four-fold, from $32 million in the 2008 election to more than 

$135 million at the same point in the 

current election. 

These groups are exploiting our tax 

code by organizing as tax-exempt ‘‘social welfare’’ groups and then spending 

tens of millions of undisclosed dollars 

on political campaigns. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)— 

the organization that grants these 

groups their tax-exempt status in the 

first place—should be protecting the 

voting public from these groups that 

pretend to be acting in the social welfare but are instead engaging in partisan politics. 

The law in this area is clear. 26 

U.S.C. §501(c)(4) states that ‘‘Civic 

leagues or organizations not organized 

for profit but operated exclusively for 

the promotion of social welfare, or 

local associations of employees, the 

membership of which is limited to the 

employees of a designated person or 

persons in a particular municipality, 

and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes’’ are 

exempt from taxation. The word ‘‘exclusively’’ is in the tax code for a reason. Congress didn’t say ‘‘partially,’’ or 

‘‘primarily.’’ We said that these groups 

had to be operated ‘‘exclusively’’ for 

the promotion of social welfare. The 

IRS, in writing the implementing regulations to the statute, said that, ‘‘An 

organization is operated exclusively for 

the promotion of social welfare if it is 

primarily engaged in promoting in 

some way the common good and general welfare.’’ [emphasis added] By substituting the word ‘‘primarily’’ in the 

regulation with the word ‘‘exclusively’’ 

in the statute, the IRS essentially redefined what Congress required a social 

welfare organization to be. 

Mr. President, I asked the IRS for an 

explanation as to why they have not 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6429 

responded to the increasing growth of 

groups that parade as social welfare 

groups but are obviously organized for 

politically partisan purposes. In my 

letters, I asked the IRS how they interpret the explicit language in the tax 

code which says that entities must operate ‘‘exclusively’’ for the promotion 

of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 

501(c)(4) organizations. Their response? 

That the regulation has been in place 

for over 50 years. That is not an excuse 

if new abuses require a review of an 

IRS regulation. 

I also asked the IRS if they are fulfilling their enforcement function by 

notifying these groups that are obviously engaged primarily in political activity that they are violation of the 

law. Again, the IRS response was inadequate. During the past 6 months, according to the IRS letter, no notices of 

proposed or final revocation have been 

issued to section 501(c)(4) organizations. None. So even under the ‘‘primarily’’ test the IRS is not enforcing 

the law in the face of the avalanche of 

evidence that our laws are being flouted. 

The law is clear. Even the watereddown IRS regulation is clear. It is time 

that the IRS enforces the law, or at 

least its own regulation. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

correspondence with the IRS be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, July 27, 2012. 

Hon. DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, 

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR COMMISSIONER SHULMAN: I am writing 

to express my concern about how the IRS interprets the law regarding the extent to 

which 501(c)(4) ‘‘social welfare’’ organizations can engage in partisan political activity. The July 13, 2012 response by Lois G. 

Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations, to 

my June 13, 2012 letter was unsatisfactory. 

In the response, Ms. Lerner stated that 

‘‘The IRS takes steps to continually inform 

organizations of their responsibilities as social welfare organization to help them avoid 

jeopardizing their tax-exempt status,’’ and 

‘‘actively educates section 501(c)(4) organizations at multiple states in their development 

about their responsibilities under the tax 

law.’’ [Emphasis added.] 

Her discussion does not describe an IRS 

initiative to ‘‘continually inform’’ or ‘‘actively educate.’’ Rather, it shows the IRS is 

passively making some information available once a 501(c)(4) entity is already in existence. Further, her discussion of the explanatory materials available to the public, 

and the materials themselves, are confusing. 

This leads to a predictable result: organizations are using Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) to gain tax exempt status while 

engaging in partisan political campaigns. 

There is an absurd tangle of vague and contradictory materials that the IRS provides. 

Making the problem worse is that the IRS 

knows there is a problem because of the public nature of the activity, but has failed to 

address it. 

First, the law. 

26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) states that ‘‘Civic 

leagues or organizations not organized for 

profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations 

of employees, the membership of which is 

limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, 

and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes’’ are exempt from taxation. [Emphasis added.] Merriam-Webster 

defines ‘‘exclusively’’ as ‘‘single, sole; whole; 

undivided.’’ Therefore, it would appear that 

the law prevents entities that organize under 

Section 501(c)(4)from any activity that is not 

operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or an association of employees. 

Consistent with the law is a 1997 letter 

from the IRS denying tax-exempt status to a 

group called the National Policy Forum. The 

letter indicates that the IRS based its denial 

on the fact that the organization was engaged in partisan political activity, stating 

that ‘‘partisan political activity does not 

promote social welfare as defined in section 

501(c)(4),’’ and that the applicant ‘‘benefit[s] 

select individuals or groups, instead of the 

community as a whole. 

One part of Internal Revenue Service Publication 557 in its guidance states, consistent 

with the law, that: 

‘‘If your organization is not organized for 

profit and will be operated only to promote 

social welfare to benefit the community, you 

should file Form 1024 to apply for recognition of exemption from federal income tax 

under section 501(c)(4).’’ [Emphasis added] 

Another part of Internal Revenue Service 

Publication 557 starts off by agreeing with 

the law and states, ‘‘Promoting social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any 

candidate for public office.’’ The IRS is accurately and clearly stating, in some places at 

least, that ‘‘social welfare’’ advocacy does 

not include campaigning for or against a 

candidate or candidates. 

So far, so good—until that same Publication 557 states: ‘‘However, if you submit 

proof that your organization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it can 

obtain an exemption [from taxes] even if it 

participates legally in some political activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.’’ 

That language seems inconsistent with the 

other referenced parts of Publication 557 (as 

well as being inconsistent with law and 

precedent), unless it means that the exemption isn’t available for the political activity 

portion funded by 501(c)(4) receipts. 

Further, an IRS regulation that interprets 

Section 501(c)(4) states that, ‘‘An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common 

good and general welfare of the people of the 

community.’’ [Emphasis added.] 

So the IRS regulation says the law’s requirement of ‘‘exclusively’’ really means 

‘‘primarily,’’ something very different from 

‘‘exclusively.’’ 

The IRS webpage cites an internal training 

article which states: 

‘‘‘[S]ocial welfare’ is inherently an abstruse concept that continues to defy precise 

definition. Careful case-by-case analyses and 

close judgments are still required.’’ [Emphasis added.] 

Fair enough. 

In its Compliance Guide for Tax-Exempt 

Organizations, the IRS gives direction regarding how to make a case-by-case evaluation whether a communication is political. 

That Guide says that the following factors 

indicate that an advocacy communication is 

political campaign activity: 

The communication identifies a candidate 

for public office; 

The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign; 

The communication targets voters in a 

particular election; 

The communication identifies the candidate’s position on the public policy issue 

that is the subject of the communication; 

The position of the candidate on the public 

policy issue has been raised as distinguishing 

the candidate from others in the campaign, 

either in the communication itself or in 

other public communications; and 

The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy 

communications by the organization on the 

same issue. 

The guide further lays out the factors that 

indicate when an advocacy communication 

is not political campaign activity: 

The absence of anyone or more of the factors listed above; 

The communication identifies specific legislation, or a specific event outside the control of the organization, that the organization hopes to influence; 

The timing of the communication coincides with a specific event outside the control of the organization that the organization hopes to influence, such as a legislative 

vote or other major legislative action (for 

example, a hearing before a legislative committee on the issue that is the subject of the 

communication); 

The communication identifies the candidate solely as a government official who is 

in a position to act on the public policy issue 

in connection with the specific event (such 

as a legislator who is eligible to vote on the 

legislation); and 

The communication identifies the candidate solely in the list of key or principal 

sponsors of the legislation that is the subject 

of the communication. 

It is clear from the application of those 

factors that what is going on in the U.S. 

with certain 501(c)(4) organizations in their 

television advertisements are political campaign activities. 

Below are two transcripts of advertisements that were put on television by 501(c)(4) 

organizations. As you can see, the subject of 

Advertisement #1 is a Democratic Senator, 

and the subject of Advertisement #2 is a Republican Senator. This is not a partisan 

issue. 

Television Advertisement #1: 

‘‘It’s time to play: Who is the biggest supporter of the Obama agenda in Ohio. It’s 

Sherrod Brown. Brown backed Obama’s agenda a whopping 95 percent of the time. He 

voted for budget busting ObamaCare that 

adds $700 billion to the deficit. For Obama’s 

$453 billion tax increase. And even supported 

cap-and-trade which could have cost Ohio 

over 100,000 jobs. Tell Sherrod Brown, for 

real job growth, stop spending and cut the 

debt. Support the new majority agenda at 

newmajorityagenda.org.’’ 

Television Advertisement #2: 

‘‘Before Wall Street gave him $200,000 in 

campaign cash. . . . Before he voted to let 

bank CEOs take millions in taxpayer funded 

bonuses. . . . Dean Heller was a stockbroker. 

No wonder he voted against Wall Street reform; against holding the big banks accountable. Heller even voted to risk your Social 

Security here, in the stock market. Dean 

Heller: he votes like he still works for Wall 

Street, and that’s bad for you.’’ 

Those ads, and so many like them, clearly 

fit the factors the IRS has laid out in its 

guide for what constitutes a political campaign activity. The advertisements make no 

pretense at nonpartisanship; they are blatantly and aggressively partisan communications. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6430 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

Entities that file under Section 501(c)(4) of 

the Internal Revenue Code and take advantage of its tax exemption benefits should 

have to make a choice: either lose their exempt status (and pay taxes) or eliminate the 

partisan political activity. 

The IRS needs to immediately review the 

activities of 501(c)(4) entities engaging in 

running partisan political ads or giving 

funds to Section 527 organizations that run 

such ads. The IRS needs to advise 501(c)(4) 

entities of the law in this area and the factors it will look at in reviewing 501(c)(4) status and tax exemption issues. 

Please provide me with the following information no later than August 10, 2012: 

1. How can the IRS interpret the explicit 

language in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), which provides that ??510??(c)(4) entities must operate 

‘‘exclusively’’ for the promotion of social 

welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan 

political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations? 

2. Since partisan political activity does not 

meet the IRS definition of ‘‘promoting social 

welfare,’’ how can an organization that participates in any partisan political activity 

be‘‘organized exclusively to promote social 

welfare?’’ 

3. The Exempt Organizations 2011 Annual 

Report and 2012 Work Plan states: ‘‘As in any 

election year, EO will continue its work to 

enforce the rules relating to political campaigns and campaign expenditures. In FY 

2012, EO will combine what it has learned 

from past projects on political activities 

with new information gleaned from the redesigned Form 990 to focus its examination resources on serious allegations of impermissible political intervention.’’ 

a. Typically, how long after a complaint to 

the IRS does a compliance review begin? 

b. What approximate time does it take to 

review the complaint? 

c. How many persons are involved in the 

enforcement of the 501(c)(4) rules? 

4. The Exempt Organizations 2011 Annual 

Report and 2012 Work Plan states that 501 

(c)(4) organizations ‘‘can declare themselves 

tax-exempt without seeking a determination 

from the IRS. EO will review organizations 

to ensure that thel have classified themselves correctly and that they are complying 

with applicable rules.’’ 

a. Why does the IRS allow 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare? 

b. When an organization ‘‘self declares’’ as 

a 501(c)(4) organization, how does the IRS get 

notice and how long does it take the IRS to 

conduct the review to ensure that that organization has classified itself correctly? 

5. The IRS Compliance Guide for Tax-Exempt Organizations states: 

‘‘When a 501(c)(4), (5) or (6) organization’s 

communication explicitly advocates the 

election or defeat of an individual to public 

office, the communication is considered political campaign activity. A tax-exempt organization that makes expenditures for political campaign activities shall be subject 

to tax in an amount equal to its net investment income for the year or the aggreate 

amount expended on political campaign activities during the year, whichever is less.’’ 

a. How does the IRS keep track of these explicit communications and ensure that the 

organization pays this tax? 

b. What is the reason for the requirement 

that the tax will be based on ‘‘whichever is 

less’’ between its net investment income for 

the year or the aggregate amount expended 

on political campaign activities? 

c. What tax would an organization have to 

pay if it spends all of its income on political 

advertising (therefore it has NO net investment income)? 

6. Ms. Lerner’s letter quotes the IRS 

webpage on Social Welfare Organizations: 

‘‘The promotion of social welfare does not 

include direct or indirect participation or 

intervention in political campaigns on behalf 

of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social 

welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its 

primary activity. However, any expenditure 

it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f)?’’ [Emphasis 

added] 

a. What is the statutory basis of the language that allows 501(c)(4) organizations to 

engage in some political activities? 

b. How does the IRS keep track of these 

political activities and ensure that the organization pays the tax under section 527(f)? 

7. In her July 13 letter, Ms. Lerner states 

that the IRS also addresses the issue of political activities in the Forms 990 and 990– 

EZ. 

Are Forms 990 and 990–EZ made public? If 

so, where can they be accessed? 

8. Internal Revenue Service Publication 557 

states that, if a 501(c)(4) entity can ‘‘submit 

proof that [the] organization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it can 

obtain an exemption even if it participates 

legally in some political activity on behalf of 

or in opposition to candidates for public office.’’ 

Have the following 501(c)(4) organizations 

a) applied for; and if so, b) received the described exemption for political activity from 

the IRS? 

a. Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies 

b. Priorities U.S.A. 

c. Americans Elect 

d. American Action Network 

e. Americans for Prosperity 

f. American Future Fund 

g. Americans for Tax Reform 

h. 60 Plus Association 

i. Patriot Majority USA 

j. Club for Growth 

k. Citizens for a Working America Inc. 

l. Susan B. Anthony List 

9. Have you reminded 501(c)(4)s which publicly seem to be operating in the partisan political arena as to the factors you will consider in determining whether they are engaging in partisan political activity? If not, why 

not? 

I have enclosed a copy of Ms. Lerner’s letter. If you have any questions, please contact me, or have your staff contact Kaye 

Meier of my staff at 

kaye_meier@ievin.senate.gov or 202/224–9110. 

Again, it is urgent that I receive your answers by August 10, 2012. 

Sincerely, 

CARL LEVIN, 

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Washington, DC., August 24, 2012. 

Hon. CARL LEVIN, 

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR LEVIN: I am responding to 

your letter to Commissioner Shulman dated 

July 27, 2012, requesting additional information about section 501(c)(4) organizations. 

This response supplements the previous responses dated June 4, 2012 and July 13, 2012, 

and addresses the additional questions raised 

in your recent letter. 

Question 1. How can the IRS interpret the 

explicit language in 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4), 

which provides that 510(c)(4) entities must 

operate ‘‘exclusively’’ for the promotion of 

social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations? 

We note that the current regulation has 

been in place for over 50 years. Moreover, unlike Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), 

which specifically provides that organizations may ‘‘not participate in, or intervene 

in . . . any political campaign on behalf of 

(or in opposition to) any candidate for public 

office.’’), section 501(c)(4) does not contain a 

specific rule or limitation on political campaign intervention by social welfare organizations. 

Question 2. Since partisan political activity does not meet the IRS definition of ‘‘promoting social welfare,’’ how can an organization that participates in any partisan political activity be ‘‘organized exclusively to 

promote social welfare?’’ 

As stated above, longstanding Treasury 

Regulations have interpreted ‘‘exclusively’’ 

as used in section 501(c)(4) to mean primarily. Treasury Regulation §1.501(c)(4)– 

1(a)(2)(i), promulgated in 1959, provides: ‘‘An 

organization is operated exclusively for the 

promotion of social welfare if it is primarily 

engaged in promoting the common good and 

general welfare of the people of the community.’’ Applying this Treasury Regulation, 

Revenue Ruling 81–95, 1981–1 C.B. 332, concluded that ‘‘an organization may carry on 

lawful political activities and remain exempt 

under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote 

social welfare.’’ 

Question 3. The Exempt Organizations 2011 

Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan states: 

‘‘As in any election year, EO will continue 

its work to enforce the rules relating to political campaigns and campaign expenditures. In FY 2012, EO will combine what it 

has learned from past projects on political 

activities with new information gleaned 

from the redesigned Form 990 to focus its examination resources on serious allegations of 

impermissible political intervention.’’ 

a. Typically, how long after a complaint to 

the IRS does a compliance review begin? 

b. What approximate time does it take to 

review the complaint? 

The IRS routinely receives examination 

referrals from a variety of sources including 

the public, media, Members of Congress or 

their staff, and has a longstanding process 

for handling referrals so that they receive an 

impartial, independent review from career 

employees. When the IRS receives a referral 

about a particular organization, it is 

promptly forwarded to the Classification 

unit of the Exempt Organizations (EO) Examination office in Dallas, Texas. Pursuant 

to IRM 4.75.5.4(1), within 30 days of receiving 

the referral, the Classification staff begins 

evaluating whether the referral has examination potential, should be considered in a future year, needs additional information to 

make a decision, or falls within the categories of matters that are referred for EO 

Referral Committee review. Although IRM 

4.75.5.4(1) sets a goal of 90 days to complete 

reviews of referrals, the time it takes to 

fully review a particular referral varies, depending on such factors as the issues involved and the availability of relevant information (i.e. organization’s Forms 990, external sources such as media reports, internet 

searches, etc.). 

In those cases in which the IRS needs additional information about the subject of a referral that is not readily available, such as 

its Form 990 that has not been filed yet for 

the tax year at issue, Classification may suspend classifying the referral and places it in 

the follow-up category until the additional 

information is available. Once the additional 

information is received, reviewed, and supports the referral being classified as having 

examination potential, the referral is sent to 

unassigned inventory, until a revenue agent 

with the appropriate level of experience for 

the issues involved in the matter is available 

to conduct an examination. 

Once in inventory, there are numerous factors that can affect how long it takes to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6431 

complete the examination process. While it 

is difficult to predict how long any single examination will take, for cases closed in FY 

2011, the average time it took to close a case 

was 210 days. 

c. How many persons are involved in the 

enforcement of the 501(c)(4) rules? 

The Exempt Organizations (EO) function is 

responsible for the enforcement of section 

501(c)(4) statutory rules and regulations as 

well as those applicable to all other types of 

tax-exempt organizations. 

For FY 2011, the total number of EO staff 

was 889. Other than the 14 employees in the 

Director’s office, the three EO offices are 

staffed as follows: 

Rulings and Agreements (R&A), which includes EO Determinations and EO Technical, 

ensures organizations meet legal requirements during the application or private letter ruling process, and through guidance. In 

FY 2011, R&A had 332 employees. 

EO Examinations (Exam) is comprised of 

various units, including the Classification 

unit, the EO Compliance Unit, and the Review of Operations unit. Exam develops processes to identify areas of noncompliance, develops corrective strategies, and coordinates 

with other EO functions to ensure compliance, so that organizations maintain their 

exempt status. In FY 2011, Exam had 531 employees. 

EO Customer Education and Outreach 

(CE&O) coordinates, assists and supports the 

development of educational materials and 

outreach efforts for organizations to understand their responsibilities under the tax 

law. In FY 2011, CE&O had a staff of 12 employees. 

The employees in these functions are responsible for the regulation of all types of 

tax-exempt organizations, including section 

501(c)(4) organizations. 

Question 4. The Exempt Organizations 2011 

Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan states 

that 501(c)(4) organizations ‘‘can declare 

themselves tax-exempt without seeking a determination from the IRS. EO will review organizations to ensure that they have classified themselves correctly and that they are 

complying with applicable rules.’’ 

a. Why does the IRS allow 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare? 

The Internal Revenue Code expressly provides that certain tax-exempt organizations 

must give notice to the IRS, by filing an application for exemption, in order to claim 

tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue 

Code does not require an organization to provide notice to the IRS to be treated as described in section 501(c)(4). By contrast, for 

example, Section 508 generally requires an 

organization to provide notice to the IRS before it will be treated as described in section 

501(c)(3). 

b. When an organization ‘‘self declares’’ as 

a 501(c)(4) organization, how does the IRS get 

notice and how long does it take the IRS to 

conduct the review to ensure that the organization has classified itself correctly? 

As with other tax exempt organizations, 

organizations claiming to be tax-exempt 

under section 501(c)(4) generally are required 

to file a Form 990 on an annual basis. 

The Exempt Organizations office of the 

IRS is responsible for the compliance of over 

one million organizations with diverse goals 

and purposes. In order to ensure the highest 

degree of compliance with tax law while 

working with limited resources, EO maintains a robust and multi-faceted post-filing 

compliance program that conducts reviews 

of exempt organizations in various ways, 

such as: 

Review of Operations (ROO) reviews: Because a ROO review is not an audit, the ROO 

carries out its post-filing compliance work 

without contacting taxpayers. Instead, the 

ROO looks at an organization’s Form 990, 

website, and other publicly available information to see what it is doing and whether it 

continues to be organized and operated for 

tax-exempt purposes. If it appears from a 

ROO review that an organization may not be 

compliant, the organization is referred for 

examination. 

Compliance checks: In a compliance check, 

IRS contacts taxpayers by letter when we 

discover an apparent error on a taxpayer’s 

return or wish to obtain further information 

or clarification. A compliance check is an efficient and effective way to maintain a compliance presence without an examination. 

We also use compliance check questionnaires 

to study specific parts of the tax-exempt 

community or specific cross-sector practices. 

Examinations: Examinations, also known 

as audits, are authorized under Section 7602 

of the Code. For exempt organizations, an 

examination determines an organization’s 

continued qualification for tax-exempt status. We conduct two different types of examinations: correspondence and field. 

Because the IRS cannot review every existing organization in every tax year, we use 

the review techniques described above to 

maximize our coverage of the tax exempt 

sector in both our general program work and 

our project work. The project work, which 

results from our strategic planning process, 

is designed to focus on specific areas affecting the EO sector and to direct more effective use of our resources in the effort to 

strengthen compliance and improve tax administration. Described in the EO 2012 Work 

Plan, the sections 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) SelfDeclarers is one such project. This project 

focuses on organizations that hold themselves out as being tax-exempt rather than 

seeking IRS recognition of their exempt status. 

Question 5. The IRS Compliance Guide for 

Tax-Exempt Organizations states: 

‘‘When a 501(c)(4), (5) or (6) organization’s 

communication explicitly advocates the 

election or defeat of an individual to public 

office, the communication is considered political campaign activity. A tax-exempt organization that makes expenditures for political campaign activities shall be subject 

to tax in an amount equal to its net investment income for the year or the aggregate 

amount expended on political campaign activities during the year, whichever is less.’’ 

a. How does the IRS keep track of these explicit communications and ensure that the 

organization pays this tax? 

Tax-exempt organizations filing Forms 990 

or 990–EZ are required to report political activities. Organizations that engage in direct 

or indirect political campaign activities are 

also required to complete Schedule C of 

Form 990 or 990–EZ. Organizations subject to 

tax under section 527(f) are required to comply with the statutory reporting and payment rules. The IRS also receives referrals 

regarding such activities from a variety of 

sources that are handled through an impartial, independent review. See the response to 

question 3 for the description on the IRS referral process. 

b. What is the reason for the requirement 

that the tax will be based on ‘‘whichever is 

less’’ between its net investment income for 

the year or the aggregate amount expended 

on political campaign activities? 

The statute under section 527(f) explicitly 

states that a 501(c) organization is subject to 

its tax based on ‘‘an amount equal to the 

lesser of—(A) the net investment income of 

such organization for the taxable year, or (B) 

the aggregate amount expended during the 

taxable year for such an exempt function.’’ 

c. What tax would an organization have to 

pay if it spends all its income on political 

advertising (therefore it has NO net investment income)? 

Under the statute cited above, an organization that otherwise meets the requirements 

of section 501(c)(4) social welfare tax-exempt 

status, which spends all its income on political advertising and has no net investment 

income would not owe any tax under section 

527(f). It may however, through such spending (and depending on the otherwise applicable facts of the case), no longer qualify as an 

organization that is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4). 

Question 6. Ms. Lerner’s letter quotes the 

IRS webpage on Social Welfare Organizations: 

‘‘The promotion of social welfare does not 

include direct or indirect participation or 

intervention in political campaigns on behalf 

of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social 

welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its 

primary activity. However, any expenditure 

it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). [Emphasis 

added.] 

a. What is the statutory basis of the language that allows 501(c)(4) organizations to 

engage in some political activities? 

Please see responses to questions 1 and 2, 

above. 

b. How does the IRS keep track of these 

political activities and ensure that the organization pays the tax under section 527(f)? 

Section 501(c)(4) organizations filing Forms 

990 or 990–EZ are required to report political 

activities. Organizations that engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities 

are also required to complete Schedule C of 

Form 990 or 990–EZ. Organizations subject to 

tax under section 527(f) are required to comply with the statutory reporting and payment rules. The IRS also receives referrals 

regarding such activities from a variety of 

sources that are handled through an impartial, independent review. See the response to 

question 3 for the description on the IRS referral process. 

Question 7. In her July 13 letter, Ms. 

Lerner states that the IRS also addresses the 

issue of political activities in the Forms 990 

and 990–EZ. 

Are Forms 990 and 990–EZ made public? If 

so, where can they be accessed? 

Yes, Forms 990 and 990–EZ are made public. 

Tax-exempt organizations are required to 

make their returns widely available for public inspection. Organizations are required to 

allow the public to inspect the Forms 990, 

990–EZ, 990–N, and 990–PF they have filed 

with the IRS for their three most recent tax 

years. Exempt organizations also are required to provide copies of these information 

returns when requested, or make them available on the Internet. The annual information 

returns also are available from the IRS, as 

well as from third-party sources that post 

them on their websites. 

Question 8. Internal Revenue Services Publication 557 states that, if a 501(c)(4) entity 

can ‘‘submit proof that [the] organization is 

organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it can obtain an exemption even if it 

participates legally in some political activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.’’ 

Have the following 501(c)(4) organizations 

a) applied for; and if so, b) received the described exemption for political activity from 

the IRS? 

a. Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies 

b. Priorities U.S.A. 

c. Americans Elect 

d. American Action Network 

e. Americans for Prosperity 

f. American Future Fund 

g. Americans for Tax Reform 

h. 60 Plus Association 

i. Patriot Majority USA 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

j. Club for Growth 

k. Citizens for a Working America Inc. 

l. Susan B. Anthony List 

Initially, to clarify, section 501(c)(4) organizations do not receive ‘‘exemption for political activity.’’ Rather, organizations are 

recognized under section 501 (c)(4) as tax-exempt when they demonstrate that they plan 

to be primarily engaged in activities that 

promote social welfare. If they meet that 

standard, the fact that they engage in other 

activities that do not promote social welfare, 

such as political campaign intervention, will 

not preclude recognition of their tax-exempt 

status. Whether an organization meets the 

statutory and regulatory requirements of 

section 501 (c)(4) depends upon all of the facts 

and circumstances, and no one factor is determinative. 

As discussed in our response to you dated 

June 4, 2012, section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the disclosure of information about specific taxpayers unless the 

disclosure is authorized by some provision in 

the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS cannot 

legally disclose whether the organizations on 

your list have applied for tax exemption (unless and until such application is approved). 

Section 61 04(a) of the Code permits public 

disclosure of an application for recognition 

of tax exempt status only after the organization has been recognized as exempt. 

Searching the names exactly as provided, 

our records show that the following organizations have been recognized by the IRS as 

tax exempt under section 501(c)(4). 

Americans For Prosperity 

American Future Fund 

60 Plus Association 

Patriot Majority USA 

Citizens for a Working America Inc. 

With respect to the other organizations for 

which you inquired, we will be able to determine if they have been recognized by the IRS 

as tax-exempt with additional information, 

such as an address or EIN, that specifically 

identifies the organization. Organizations 

often have similar names or maintain multiple chapters with variations of the same 

name. With respect to many of the other organizations you identified, numerous organizations in our records have very similar 

names. IRS staff can work with your staff in 

identifying the specific organizations for 

which you are interested. IRS staff is also 

available to assist your staff to navigate 

searchable databases on the IRS public 

website. As previously discussed, information on organizations with applications currently pending legally cannot be provided 

unless and until the application is approved. 

Please note that organizations that hold 

themselves out as tax-exempt without IRS 

recognition and organizations that have 

pending applications for recognition are required to file annual returns/notices. 

Question 9. Have you reminded 501(c)(4)s 

which publicly seem to be operating in the 

partisan political arena as to the factors you 

will consider in determining whether they 

are engaging in partisan political activity? If 

not, why not? 

As described in the July 13, 2012 response, 

the IRS takes several steps to continually 

educate organizations of the requirements 

under the tax law and inform them of their 

responsibilities to avoid jeopardizing their 

tax-exempt status. We believe these steps ensure the IRS administers the nation’s tax 

laws in a fair and impartial manner. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you 

have questions, please contact me or have 

your staff contact Catherine Barre at (202) 

622–3720. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN T. MILLER, 

Deputy Commissioner for 

Services and Enforcement. 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, August 31, 2012. 

Hon. DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, 

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR COMMISSIONER SHULMAN: Thank you 

for the August 24, 2012 response by Steven T. 

Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services 

and Enforcement, to my July 27, 2012 letter. 

I find it unacceptable that the IRS appears 

to be passively standing by while organizations that hold themselves out to be ‘‘social 

welfare’’ organizations clearly ignore the tax 

code with no apparent consequences. 

Frankly, the response that ‘‘long standing 

Treasury Regulations have interpreted ‘exclusively’’’ as used in section 501(c)(4) to 

mean ‘‘primarily’’ and the argument that 

‘‘section 501(c)(4) does not contain a specific 

rule or limitation on political campaign 

intervention by social welfare organizations’’ are not persuasive. The word ‘‘exclusively’’ as written in the statute is clear and 

speaks for itself. Its clarity is not diminished 

because the section does not mimic words in 

another section, which words are also clear. 

As a follow-up to your letter, I would like 

to know the following: 

1. If the IRS determines that an organization that has been given 501(c)(4) status has 

not engaged primarily in social welfare activities, but instead was primarily engaged 

in activity within the scope of section 527, 

what are the consequences for the organization? What are the consequences for such an 

organization having not filed timely Forms 

8871 and 8872? Must they file such forms after 

the fact? What taxes would be due? Will contributions that already have been made to 

that organization be taxable to that organization? 

2. How many 501(c)(4) organizations which 

appear to be primarily engaged in political 

activity have been notified by the IRS within the last 6 months that they may be in violation of the law? 

It is urgent that I receive your answers 

promptly, and no later than September 10, 

please. 

Sincerely, 

CARL LEVIN, 

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Washington, D.C., September 14, 2012. 

Hon. CARL LEVIN, 

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 

DEAR SENATOR LEVIN: I am responding to 

your letter to Commissioner Shulman dated 

August 31,2012, requesting additional information about section 501(c)(4) organizations. 

This response supplements the previous responses dated June 4, 2012, July 13, 2012 and 

August 24, 2012, and addresses the additional 

questions raised in your recent letter. 

Question 1. If the IRS determines that an 

organization that has been given 501(c)(4) 

status has not engaged primarily in social 

welfare activities, but instead was primarily 

engaged in activity within the scope of section 527, what are the consequences for the 

organization? What are the consequences for 

such an organization having not filed timely 

Forms 8871 and 8872? Must they file such 

forms after the fact? What taxes will be due? 

Will contributions that already have been 

made to that organization be taxable to that 

organization? 

If an IRS audit or examination concludes 

that a section 501(c)(4) organization does not 

engage primarily in social welfare activities, 

the IRS may revoke the tax-exempt status of 

that organization. If the tax-exempt status 

is revoked, the organization is a taxable entity effective, in general, as of the first day 

of the tax year under examination. The organization is required to file Federal income 

tax returns, generally a Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax. The tax treatment of 

the organization’s contributions and other 

income is determined under normal rules of 

Subtitle A. 

Whether an organization no longer qualifies to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) 

does not determine whether it is a political 

organization under section 527. Section 

527(e)(1) defines a political organization as a 

party, committee, or other organization that 

is organized and operated primarily for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly accepting 

contributions or making expenditures for an 

exempt function (as defined in 527(e)(2)). If 

an organization meets this definition, then 

its tax status is determined under section 

527. 

Subject to certain exceptions, to be tax-exempt under section 527, a political organization is required to give notice electronically 

to the Service. The required notice form is 

Form 8871, Political Organization Notice of 

Section 527 Status. To be tax-exempt, the political organization must file Form 8871 

within 24 hours after the date on which it 

was established. If the organization has a 

material change in any of the information 

reported on Form 8871, it must file an 

amended Form 8871 within 30 days of the material change to maintain its tax-exempt 

status. When the organization terminates its 

existence, it must file a final Form 8871 within 30 days of termination. 

An organization that is required to file 

Form 8871, but fails to file on a timely basis, 

will not be treated as a tax-exempt political 

organization for any period before the date 

Form 8871 is filed. The taxable income of the 

organization for any period in which it failed 

to file Form 8871 (or, in the case of a material change, the period beginning with the 

date of the material change and ending on 

the date it satisfies the notice requirement) 

is subject to tax and must be reported on the 

annual income tax return Form 112Q–POL. 

The tax is computed by multiplying the organization’s taxable income by the highest 

federal corporate tax rate, currently 35 percent. For purposes of computing its taxable 

income for any period, the organization includes its exempt function income (including 

contributions received, membership dues, 

and political fundraising receipts), minus 

any deductions directly connected with the 

production of that income, but may not deduct its exempt function expenditures for 

the period. 

Generally, tax-exempt political organizations that have, or expect to have. contributions or expenditures exceeding $25,000 during a calendar year are required to file Form 

8872, Political Organization Report of Contributions and Expenditures, beginning with 

the first month or quarter during the calendar year in which they accept contributions or make expenditures. A tax-exempt 

political organization subject to the periodic 

reporting requirement may choose to file 

Form 8872 on a monthly basis or on a quarterly/semiannual basis, but it must file on 

the same basis for the entire calendar year. 

In addition, tax-exempt political organizations that make contributions or expenditures with respect to an election for federal 

office as defined in 527(j)(6) may be required 

to file pre-election reports for that election. 

A tax-exempt political organization that 

does not timely file the required Form 8872, 

or that fails to include the information required on the Form 8872. must pay an 

amount calculated by multiplying the 

amount of contributions and expenditures 

that are not disclosed by the highest federal 

corporate tax rate, currently 35 percent. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6433 

Question 2. How many 501(c)(4) organizations which appear to be primarily engaged 

in political activity have been notified by 

the IRS within the last 6 months that they 

may be in violation of the law? 

When the IRS examines a section 501(c)(4) 

organization, the objective of the audit is to 

determine whether that organization qualifies for tax-exempt-status as a social welfare 

organization. As discussed in our June 4, 2012 

response to your March 30, 2012 letter, that 

determination looks to whether the organization is primarily engaged in activities that 

promote social welfare, not organized or operated for profit, and the net earnings of 

which do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. The examination looks at the activities engaged in during 

the complete taxable year at issue. Although 

the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or 

intervention in political campaigns on behalf 

of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization can engage in political activities 

as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare. 

If the IRS believes that an organization 

does not meet the requirements under section 501(c)(4), the IRS notifies the organization of its intention to revoke the organization’s exempt status, explaining the law and 

reasons for the proposed revocation. The organization has 30 days from the date of that 

letter to protest or appeal the determination 

before a final revocation letter is issued to 

the organization. 

During the past six months, no notices of 

proposed or final revocation were issued to 

section 501(c)(4) organizations. Note that the 

IRS currently has more than 70 ongoing examinations of section 501(c)(4) organizations 

(this includes examinations for a variety of 

issues, some of which include whether the organization is primarily engaged in activities 

that promote social welfare). It is also important to note that the Service also maintains a determination process to review the 

operations of an organization to determine 

whether it should be recognized as tax exempt. In this area, we also review compliance with the legal requirements, including 

whether an organization is primary engaged 

in activities that promote social welfare. 

There are currently more than 1,600 organizations in the determination process seeking 

recognition as a section 501(c)(4) organization. The level of political activity is an 

issue in a number of these determination 

cases. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you 

have questions, please contact me or have 

your staff contact Catherine Barre. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN T. MILLER, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

f 

Enforcement. 

TRIBUTE TO JUDGE BRUCE D. 

BLACK 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I 

want to recognize the distinguished 

service of my friend Bruce Black, the 

Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the District of New Mexico. 

Bruce has chosen to leave the Federal bench at the end of this month. 

His decision to retire is a loss for our 

State and for the Nation. But he has 

served our Nation with great distinction and ability. 

Bruce was appointed to be a district 

court judge by President Clinton in 

1995. During the 17 years of his service 

in that position he has exemplified the 

integrity and high standards of fairness 

and impartiality which we strive for in 

our Federal judiciary. 

Throughout his years as a Federal 

judge he has never lost sight of the 

real-life effects of the court’s decisions 

on the lives of those who come before 

the court. 

Bruce and his wife Mary have exciting plans for the next chapter of their 

lives. They are close friends to my wife 

Anne, and me. We wish them the very 

best in future years. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO JONA OLSSON 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 

today I wish to recognize Jona Olsson, 

fire chief of the Latir Volunteer Fire 

Department located near Questa, NM. 

Olsson was recently honored as the 2012 

Volunteer Fire Chief of the Year by 

Fire Chief for her tireless work at the 

Latir Volunteer Fire Department and 

her efforts to increase diversity in the 

local fire service. She was honored on 

August 3, 2012, during the opening session of the International Association of 

Fire Chiefs’ Fire-Rescue International 

Conference and Exhibition in Denver, 

CO. 

After moving to New Mexico in 1999, 

Olsson was recruited to join the Latir 

Volunteer Fire Department. She quickly became integrated in the fire department, rising through the ranks, serving 

as a training officer, deputy chief, and 

eventually fire and EMS chief for the 

department in 2006. Olsson has facilitated training to individual departments and fire conferences across 

North America, as well as the United 

Kingdom. 

During tough economic times, Olsson 

and other volunteers have continued to 

expand the fire department, increasing 

training hours and the number of 

qualified volunteers. All 18 of Latir’s 

volunteer firefighters are structure 

trained, 13 are qualified with wildland 

Red Cards, and nine have EMS licenses. 

The Latir Volunteer Fire Department 

also has an active junior firefighter 

program. In addition, the fire department recently built a new addition to 

the fire station and purchased another 

fire engine. 

I ask that my colleagues join me in 

honoring Jona Olsson and the excellent 

work of the Latir Volunteer Fire Department. The dedication of Olsson and 

the community volunteers helps ensure 

the delivery of vital services to New 

Mexico residents. 

f 

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 

over 2 years have passed since I last included the names of our troops who 

have lost their lives serving in support 

of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

Since I last included the names of 

our fallen troops on July 13, 2010, the 

Pentagon announced the deaths of 1,020 

troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten, and 

today I ask unanimous consent that 

their names be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CW2 Jose L. Montenegro Jr., of Houston, 

TX; CW2 Thalia S. Ramirez, of San Antonio, 

TX; PFC Shane W. Cantu, of Corunna, MI; 

LCpl Alec R. Terwiske, of Dubois, IN; SSG 

Jeremie S. Border, of Mesquite, TX; SSG 

Jonathan P. Schmidt, of Petersburg, VA; 

SPC Kyle R. Rookey, of Oswego, NY; SSG 

Jessica M. Wing, of Alexandria, VA; SGT 

Christopher J. Birdwell, of Windsor, CO; SPC 

Mabry J. Anders, of Baker City, OR; PFC Patricia L. Horne, of Greenwood, MS; SGT 

Louis R. Torres, of Oberlin, OH; SGT David 

V. Williams, of Frederick, MD; SFC Coater 

B. Debose, of State Line, MS; SGT Richard 

A. Essex, of Kelseyville, CA; SGT Luis A. 

Oliver Galbreath, of San Juan, PR; SO2 

David J. Warsen, of Kentwood, MI; SO1 Patrick D. Feeks, of Edgewater, MD; PO1 Sean 

P. Carson, of Des Moines, WA; CW2 Suresh N. 

A. Krause, of Cathedral City, CA. 

CW3 Brian D. Hornsby, of Melbourne, FL; 

PO1 Darrel L. Enos, of Colorado Springs, CO; 

SSgt Gregory T. Copes, of Lynch Station, 

VA; SPC James A. Justice, of Grover, NC; 

PFC Michael R. Demarsico II, of North 

Adams, MA; SSG Eric S. Holman, of Evans 

City, PA; PFC Andrew J. Keller, of Tigard, 

OR; SSgt Scott E. Dickinson, of San Diego, 

CA; Cpl Richard A. Rivera Jr., of Ventura, 

CA; LCpl Gregory T. Buckley, of Oceanside, 

NY; SSgt Sky R. Mote, of El Dorado, CA; 

GySgt Ryan Jeschke, of Herndon, VA; Capt 

Matthew P. Manoukian, of Los Altos Hills, 

CA; MSgt Gregory R. Trent, of Norton, MA; 

MAJ Thomas E. Kennedy, of West Point, NY; 

CSM Kevin J. Griffin, of Laramie, WY; SPC 

Ethan J. Martin, of Lewiston, ID; Maj Walter 

D. Gray, of Conyers, GA; PO3 Clayton R. 

Beauchamp, of Weatherford, TX; Cpl Daniel 

L. Linnabary II, of Hubert, NC. 

1SG Russell R. Bell, of Tyler, TX; SSG 

Matthew S. Sitton, of Largo, FL; 1LT Todd 

W. Lambka, of Fraser, MI; PFC Jesus J. 

Lopez, of San Bernardino, CA; SPC Kyle B. 

McClain, of Rochester Hills, MI; LCpl Curtis 

J. Duarte, of Covina, CA; GySgt Jonathan W. 

Gifford, of Palm Bay, FL; GySgt Daniel J. 

Price, of Holland, MI; 1LT Sean R. Jacobs, of 

Redding, CA; SGT John E. Hansen, of Austin, 

TX; SPC Benjamin C. Pleitez, of Turlock, 

CA; SFC Bobby L. Estle, of Lebanon, OH; 

PFC Jose Oscar Belmontes, of La Verne, CA; 

PFC Theodore M. Glende, of Rochester, NY; 

Sgt Justin M. Hansen, of Traverse City, MI; 

SPC Justin L. Horsley, of Palm Bay, FL; 

PFC Brenden N. Salazar, of Chuluota, FL; 

PFC Adam C. Ross, of Lyman, SC; SGT Eric 

E. Williams, of Murrieta, CA; PFC Julian L. 

Colvin, of Birmingham, AL. 

SSG Richard L. Berry, of Scottsdale, AZ; 

PO2 Michael J. Brodsky, of Tamarac, FL; 

SSG Brandon R. Pepper, of York, PA; SPC 

Darrion T. Hicks, of Raleigh, NC; PFC Jeffrey L. Rice, of Troy, OH; PO2 Joseph P. 

Fitzmorris, of Ruston, LA; CPO Sean P. Sullivan, of St. Louis, MO; SPC Krystal M. 

Fitts, of Houston, TX; Cpl Joshua R. Ashley, 

of Rancho Cucamonga, CA; SGT Daniel A. 

Rodriguez, of Baltimore, MD; SGT Jose J. 

Reyes, of San Lorenzo, PR; SPC Sergio E. 

Perez Jr., of Crown Point, IN; SPC Nicholas 

A. Taylor, of Berne, IN; SGT Erik N. May, of 

Independence, KS; SSG Carl E. Hammar, of 

Lake Havasu City, AZ; SGT Michael E. 

Ristau, of Rockford, IL; SPC Sterling W. 

Wyatt, of Columbia, MO; PFC Cameron J. 

Stambaugh, of Spring Grove, PA; PFC 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE