[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page H894]]

                      MORE OVERSIGHT OF IRS NEEDED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I agree 1,000 percent with the former 
speaker, the gentleman from eastern Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and share in 
that message. Where the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] says that 
Congress cannot control the policy within Mexico, nor for that matter 
any other foreign government, I wholeheartedly agree.
  But what bothers me today is Congress can control the policy of the 
United States of America and that is why we were in fact elected. We 
were not elected as a Member of the British Parliament or the Israeli 
Knesset or the Japanese Diet. We are in fact Members of Congress.
  An issue I want to talk about today is a bill that I have sponsored, 
H.R. 390, that is a very straightforward bill that deals with the IRS, 
I believe an agency of our Federal Government that the U.S. Congress 
has not only failed to control but has allowed to proceed without 
oversight in establishing not only policy which is clearly within the 
province of the United States of America, but rules and regulations 
that in fact impound and impact upon that policy and everybody seems to 
just be silent. Nobody wants the IRS on your back.
  I am not going to go into the whole litany of Watergate, but if there 
was a real downside to Watergate, it was not that snooping. That 
happens all the time. The Nixon people happened to get caught. What 
bothered me, though, is reading the White House transcripts on the 
targeting of enemies of the White House, where the President is quoted 
in White House transcripts as saying, ``That Congressman is on my back 
and I've had it. You get the FBI and you get the IRS out there and you 
get this guy out of the way.''
  We know that that goes on. We believe that it is relatively small. 
Most IRS agents are regular Americans like we are and they try and do a 
good job.
  But there is a fundamental problem here. In their zeal, there are 
some overzealous agents. There have been Americans that have been 
ripped off and Congress continues to be silent.
  The Traficant bill is right to the point. In certain civil 
proceedings, the only agency of the Federal Government that can waive 
the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is the Internal Revenue 
Service, because in certain civil proceedings in courts of law, the 
burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove they are not guilty and 
they are in fact innocent. That is unheard of. How did this thing 
evolve?
  Just on a matter of fairness, if there were not cases that speak to 
this dilemma that we face, how could this have evolved, Congress?
                              {time}  0950

  Where are rules and regulations being promulgated behind closed doors 
by bureaucrats without congressional oversight able to basically change 
the basic tenet of our Constitution?
  I want to give my colleagues one example, David and Millie Evans of 
Colorado. IRS said you owe us $40,000. We are going to lien your 
property unless you pay. David and Millie Evans said we do not believe 
we owe that money. About a month later the IRS called back and said we 
made a mistake; it is $100,000.
  The Evanses got together at the IRS, they came to a settlement 
agreement, $22,000, and the Evanses wrote the check for $22,000. 
Another group in the IRS said we did not receive the check. It is a 
moot point. We want the $100,000.
  The case went to court. They lost their business, their home was 
liened. They spent a ton of money on attorneys, and finally a court 
said the Evanses are in fact innocent.
  The IRS appealed the case by saying the judge wrongfully instructed 
the jury. He told the jury that the burden of proof in this case was on 
the IRS to prove their case, but under this proceeding the burden of 
proof is not. The IRS said the burden of proof is on the Evanses and 
the case should be overturned and vacated, and it was.
  The Traficant bill was not getting looked at too much because most 
Members want to say, ``I can't believe the IRS has that power; come on 
now.''
  That was a court case. We have documented cases of suicide, we have 
documented cases of Americans that are simple told, ``Prove it.''
  I think it is very simple, ladies and gentlemen, if the IRS has a 
case, and IRS has money coming, taxpayers of America want the Internal 
Revenue Service to collect that money. But I think we have created an 
agency that is a little bit out of control and too much for those 
people, including Red Skelton, who said we have a gestapo unit in 
Washington known as the Internal Revenue Service. I think Red Skelton 
an awful long time ago was trying to tell Congress about something that 
was building in our country.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, average Americans are frustrated with our 
Government. Many cannot articulate it, but one thing they know for 
sure, they know that the Internal Revenue Service has gone beyond the 
control of Congress. I hear many Members that say, ``Look, Jim, I don't 
want to get involved in that case.''
  Well, your taxpayers are. Congress should be.

                          ____________________