[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2649-H2652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE IRS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Perry) for 30 minutes.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, do we live in a banana republic? Are we
living under a tin horn dictatorship? I mean, just this evening the IRS
Acting Chief Steve Miller resigned. I suppose that's damage control,
that's how we're going to fix this--you know, heads are going to roll.
Just recently, Mr. Miller wrote to Members of Congress at least twice
to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax exempt status
without disclosing that Tea Party groups had been targeted. So it's
nothing new. As a matter of fact, in July of last year he
[[Page H2650]]
testified before the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee and
didn't mention it, he didn't mention the additional scrutiny. I'm sure
it must have slipped his mind. Oh, that's right, it couldn't have
slipped his mind because he was asked about it specifically.
Now we're supposed to trust these answers that are forthcoming at
this time and are continuing to be revised. But initially--and
falsely--they claimed that the practice of flagging conservative groups
for additional scrutiny was contained to low-level staffers at a
Cincinnati office. First we heard it was a couple hundred, or 75, and
then 200, and now it's like 500. I mean, how much do we trust someone
that continues to change their story? And if it was low-level folks at
the agency, how come the guy at the top just resigned? I mean, I
understand that the buck stops there, but does the buck stop there--or
should it stop there?
According to the report by the Inspector General, they knew about the
problem by June 2011. I mean, they knew about it. They're testifying in
front of Members of Congress and misleading Members of Congress. Forget
Members of Congress, what about the American people? What about the
people in these organizations, God-fearing, tax-paying Americans that
were targeted, what about them?
According to the IG report, the IRS was not only targeting Tea Party
organizations; it was going after groups focused on government
spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to make America
a better place to live. Really? I mean, maybe I'm being targeted
because I'm looking through that list and I think those are things I
stand for. I think those are things that most of my constituents stand
for.
It also started targeting groups criticizing the government or
educating Americans about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Since when is it a problem to criticize your government? I mean, isn't
that one of the fundamental things that this Nation was founded on? And
now we're going to have the IRS come after us. And is it bad that we
educate Americans about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Is
that a bad thing? Apparently--according to the IRS--it is.
The use of the IRS to target political opponents of an administration
is one of the greatest dangers of the tremendous power of this Federal
agency. I mean, I asked, are we living in a banana republic? Is this a
tin horn dictatorship, because certainly this can't happen in America.
These are things that happen in these other small rogue nations where
there are political dissidents that come to America to escape
persecution.
So what's next for us in America? If it starts here, does it end with
then us going to jail as political dissenters against some ideals that
the administration currently in power has?
I'm going to read an excerpt of the Federal law, 26 U.S. Code 7217.
It prohibits any employee of the Executive Office of the President and
Vice President, as well as Cabinet Secretaries, from requesting,
directly or indirectly, that the IRS investigate any particular
taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.
It is important for the rule of law and the interest of justice that
the Congress aggressively pursue its oversight function to get to the
bottom of the scandal. We don't want to just get to the bottom of the
scandal so we can make sure it never happens again. I mean, that's what
we so often hear. We need to find out who instigated it and who
authorized it, because it is very hard for us to believe that these
were just some low-level employees that, you know, took it upon
themselves.
And I must ask everybody, what is their impetus? What is their
motivation to do that? What low-level employee would take it upon him
or herself to say, well, we're going to start investigating Tea Party
groups and groups with the name ``patriot'' in their organization.
What's in it for them? And I suspect you're having a hard time coming
up with the answer, just as I am.
How long has this been going on? Well, apparently it started in
February of 2010, and it lasted for about 27 months. The last appeal
that was approved was in Champaign, Illinois, in February of 2010. So
if you think back to February, what was happening in February of 2010?
Well, first of all, if you own an iPad right now, you couldn't get one
in February of 2010 because there were none available; it wasn't on the
market. If you remember back then, there was a volcano over Iceland
that was stopping air travel to Europe. There was the Freshwater
Horizon that blew up in the gulf, killing many workers and destroying
the environment or contaminating the environment in the gulf. That's
how long ago this has happened. That's how long this has been going on.
And that's how long people in this administration knew about it and
said nothing.
You know, I don't know what this means for Tea Party organizations
and patriot groups and the like. I mean, if I quote Julian Bond, the
former head of the NAACP, he calls the Tea Party the Taliban of
American politics. I would suggest to you that they're exactly opposite
that, and the actions of the administration are more keeping with
Taliban-like tactics. I mean, these folks are continually ridiculed for
being, oh, opposed to government intrusion in their lives, and worrying
about conspiracies, and what kind of personal things about them the
government is looking into and what they're doing with it. And it's all
very conspiratorial, and they're seen as kind of kookie whack jobs.
Apparently they're right. Who knew?
During this same period of time, interestingly, a director in the IRS
fast-tracked an application for the President's half-brother. That took
1 month. It took 1 month. Meanwhile, 27 months went by where
organizations with the name ``Tea Party'' or ``patriot'' couldn't
receive the same consideration.
Did front-line employees do this? Again, I've got to question that.
It just doesn't add up. Again, day by day we hear more and more. I
mean, the first thing that came out recently was that rogue employees
did this--and at one point only one employee. Really? One employee out
of 106,000 that work at the IRS, that's what we're supposed to believe?
Are we supposed to change our trust level and our belief level every
day as new reports come out with new information that countervails the
information of the day before? I mean, we've got to ask--the government
asks its citizens all kinds of information, whether you're a farmer and
the Agriculture Department forces you to do a survey, complete a survey
under penalty of law.
And folks call up their Congressman. They call me up in the district
office and they say: Why must I fill this out? Why do they need all
this information? What is this relevant information? That's the Ag
Department census. And maybe it's fair; maybe it's not. I take issue
with it. But in this case, I really take issue with it because in this
application and in their findings, the IRS findings, they looked at
what books Members were reading. Are we going to have a book burning
next?
{time} 1950
They looked at Facebook posts, resumes of officers, minutes of
meetings since the organizations' inceptions. And I ask you, what does
any of that have to do with your tax status? Or does it have to do with
something else? Does it have to do with your political status and who
you may disagree with?
Thirty-one organizations' information was released to organizations
like ProPublica--31 organizations. Maybe that's the beginning of that,
and maybe we don't know the extent of how many other organizations were
leaked this information. What did they do with it? Did they maybe use
it to target candidates in political elections to make sure that they
lost because they disagreed with their ideology?
We understand that we oftentimes disagree on ideology on policy, but
we expect a fair and level playing field, and we certainly expect the
government to provide that. That's the government's role. That's one of
the government's core missions. In this case, obviously, the government
was working for one team and decidedly against the other team. What
does that mean to all Americans?
Some applications were under review at the IRS for 3 years, yet you
could sue the IRS after 270 days for inaction. For 3 years these things
went dormant. So who's responsible?
[[Page H2651]]
We have had a host of scandals in this town from time immemorial.
This administration is really at some point no different than the next,
but on one point I think it has been so far: nobody is ever
responsible. People take responsibility, but there's no accountability,
and no heads really roll. Nothing happens to anyone.
Finally, there is a firing here and we're not sure this guy had
anything to do with it. But I would ask you this:
The President says that he finds out this information that you find
out in the public on the same day you find it out. Mr. Speaker, that
seems odd to me. He's the President. He's the leader of the country. We
know that he can't know every little thing in every agency. He can't
know that, and we don't expect him to know that. That is why he hires
top people, smart people to run those organizations for him. But he is
the leader of the country, and when this is going on for a couple of
years and they know about it, shouldn't we be concerned that he doesn't
know anything about it? I mean, is that a failure of leadership? I
think that's a great question. And I think that it is bad that our
President says that he doesn't know, and that he truly doesn't know. I
don't see that as a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, the American public increasingly has a trust issue with
this administration, which is now in damage control, and we understand
that they have to be. But, Mr. Speaker, while they are in damage
control, is the people's business, the legitimate people's business
being conducted right now? Where is their focus? Where was their focus
on these issues when they could have been stopped or averted, and where
is it now and what is the cost of that?
And I would also say to you this: as a person who has lead
organizations myself, at the top is where the culture starts. The
person at the top, he or she determines the culture of that whole
organization. The people within that organization survive or do not
survive by going along and learning to fit in with that culture. If
everything below that starts eroding, you can only, at some point, look
towards the top.
I would submit to you under the current scenario of the last week's
events that we might really be seeing the advent of the evidence of a
culture of corruption that has been going on for more than just a few
days. Let's just go through a couple of them. I know you know it is
coming.
It started with Fast and Furious, and I can tell you that I don't
feel like I've gotten the answers. I don't think the American people
have gotten the answers that they have been looking for. I certainly
don't think that justice has been served for those folks and, in
particular, the one agent on the border who lost his life over that.
And, of course, there's Benghazi, which information continues to come
out even as we speak, including emails today that show that the State
Department and the White House changed the intelligence talking points.
Changed them why? Why change them? Why not tell the American people
what happened, especially when apparently you know what happened? Is it
because it shouldn't have happened and it didn't have to happen, but
there was inaction when something could have changed? We heard that,
well, we couldn't get folks there in time. We can do a lot of things in
this town, but one thing I haven't seen anybody be able to do is to
predict the future.
I don't know who in the White House or who in the Department of State
predicted that the attack would only last so long. Years ago, when I
was a little kid, I watched hostages in Iran being taken, and that
lasted for well over a year, 470-some days or something like that.
How did we know, how did the Department of State, how did the White
House know that this wasn't going to be the same scenario and these
folks weren't going to be held captive for years and years and the
United States held hostage? They just assumed whatever they assumed, I
guess.
It is just interesting. We don't know the President's whereabouts
during that period of time. I don't know if we will ever know. But it
is interesting that there is no culpability, there is no
accountability. Folks at the State Department, we were told, well,
there were some low-level folks that were responsible for the security
misfortune and missteps at the consulate and they have been reassigned.
Four people are dead. Families don't know why their children died--
their brothers, their sisters, their husbands, their fathers--they
don't know to what end, and they still don't know. If we left it up to
this administration, who keeps on stonewalling and just metering out
the information only as fast as we can pull it out of them, they may
never know.
Is it embarrassing? Americans are forgiving. If a mistake was made in
good faith, a mistake was made. We are all human. But was a mistake
made in good faith or was a mistake made--scratch that. Was it a
precalculated decision for political purposes? And, if it was, that is,
indeed, reprehensible. I'm sure that is, indeed, embarrassing and there
will be a cost to that. So maybe that is the motivation we don't know.
And then there is the Justice Department wiretaps at the AP. The
Attorney General recused himself. He recused himself. He recused
himself of what? I'm not sure the timeline there. Does that mean he
knew that the Justice Department was going to tap the AP, one of the
largest wire services in the world? Did he know and say, well, there is
an investigation going on so I'm going to stay out of it and he left it
to his deputy?
We don't know what to trust, but I can tell you this. According to
the Department of Justice, their media subpoena requirement is:
The approval of the Attorney General is required before a
government attorney can issue a subpoena to a member of the
news media.
That is not my words. That comes right from 28 CFR 50.10.
Fifty-two major media organizations have spoken out against this.
This is not a liberal/conservative thing. This is a freedom of the
press. This is an issue that crosses all lines.
The press Shield Act has been introduced in the Senate. It was
introduced a couple of years ago when Democrats held the House, the
Senate, and the Presidency. Now it is being reintroduced and retouted.
Oh, really? If it was so important--if it is so important now, why
didn't you pass it then? Why did you wait until now to reintroduce it
and make a big deal of it?
I would suggest to you that that is more damage control. It is more
political gamesmanship and trying to just smooth over a bad situation.
The Justice Department wiretaps at the AP led right to this House
gallery. And I wonder about jurisdictional issues. Doesn't the
Executive Office have a separation of powers duty? Can the Executive
Office wiretap the House of Representatives?
And what about the Senate? Isn't it curious that the House of
Representatives is controlled by the majority party, which is
Republicans, so the wiretaps come here, but they don't go to the
Senate, where arguably most of the reporters hang out because that is
where things are really happening most of the day, but no wiretaps
there? I guess it is just a coincidence, Mr. Speaker.
Let's move on. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius out
soliciting funds to pay for ObamaCare. Is that appropriate or is that
not a little scandalous? Is she shaking them down? Are we just now
waiting for the next shoe to drop on that and to get some information
about that?
There's another one waiting in the wings as we speak, the EPA. Fees
for FOIA requests. Freedom of Information Act requests are normally
waived for philanthropic and public policy-oriented organizations. And,
of course, they were waived for 92 percent of green groups friendly
with the EPA. Interestingly, during the same period of time, the fees
were universally applied to conservative groups.
{time} 2000
Mr. Speaker, we have a trust issue. We've had a trust issue in the
House of Representatives with the administration for some time, and the
American people are starting to realize that they, too, have a trust
issue. It is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because, at a time when
Congress is, generally speaking, still pretty close to an all-time low
in approval rating, what we need is uplifting things from the most
transparent organization in history to make sure that the American
people know that they can trust their government even though they don't
always agree. Sometimes they disagree with
[[Page H2652]]
policy, but if it's out front--if you give somebody your rationale, if
you tell him this is why I think we should do what we should do--a
citizen says, I don't agree, but you're our leader, so go ahead.
We don't lie to the American people. We don't hide things from the
American people. We don't watch Americans die and do nothing about it
and then lie about it after the fact. We don't mislead Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it's the most critical time during these times for the
administration to fully come clean on everything. Be up front on
everything. Don't parse the information, because all that will serve to
do is to erode the trust of the American people further day by day, not
only in the administration, but in the halls of all of government
institutions from the top to the bottom.
We as Americans are right to be cynical of our government. We are
right to, and we have a right to be cynical. It's not a bad thing. We
have the right to question, and we should question--that's how answers
come--but we shouldn't have to question the trust. Questioning motives,
questioning policies, those are apt things, but not wondering why the
government is collecting information to give to the IRS.
Why would you give it to the IRS? Why did the IRS need that
information? Was it to get more taxes? Why do they need to know what
books you're reading? The IRS can put people in jail, folks. Are we
looking towards a time when we put people in jail for reading the wrong
books? for thinking the wrong things? for opposing the ruling powers?
That is something for another world. That is something from another
world, another country.
This is America. These things do not happen here. These things should
not happen here. Yet these things, apparently and sadly, have happened
here.
It is time for the administration to lay everything on the table so
that we know where we stand, so that we can get past this and get back
to the business of governance. We have slow economic growth. People are
struggling. People have lost their jobs. People will continue to lose
their jobs. Bills are going up, and paychecks are going down. That's
what we need to be focusing on.
We are held hostage by foreign governments who own our debt. We are
held hostage by foreign governments who hold energy supplies while
we're standing right on top of them in America. Those are the policies
we need to be discussing, not whether our government misled us about
Benghazi; whether they misled us about wiretaps; whether they misled us
about Fast and Furious; whether they misled us about Health and Human
Services and what they're doing with shaking down companies for money
for ObamaCare; whether they're going to mislead us about the EPA and
fees charged to certain organizations only; and certainly, the IRS'
targeting of certain individuals for what they think and what they say.
There is no place for that in America. We need to get back to the
people's business, and we need to do it right fast.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________