[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2942-H2948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page H2943]]
It has been an interesting week here in Washington, especially here
on Capitol Hill. We found out a great deal we didn't know before. We're
getting more details. It's intriguing that we have the IRS official,
Ms. Lerner, who knew--found out about--the outrageous practice of
targeting what were perceived to be the President's enemies--people who
wanted the Constitution followed, people who felt they had been taxed
enough already, the Tea Parties, constitutional groups, pro-Israel
groups, conservative groups, people who could have made a difference in
the last election.
One reporter had asked before, Why would people even be bothering to
get legal status? Why would they even apply to the IRS to get 501(c)(3)
or 501(c)(4) status?
The answer is: because that's the way the government has taken over
people's political abilities, because you can't call people to
Washington or call people to come state their opinions without normally
raising money, and if you don't have a legally recognized group by the
IRS, then the IRS will go after the individuals who engage in pooling
money and in helping pay people's way to get them here. They'll go
after the individual.
{time} 1310
We have forced people who want to make their voices heard
collectively into begging the IRS for legal status, and the threats are
there if you don't get their legal status recognized. Then when we see
what the IRS has done as just an arm, basically, of the Democratic
Party to help defeat or help prevent people from having legal status,
it is absolutely incredible, especially when you find out they wouldn't
even give them an answer ``yes'' or ``no''; because these people at the
IRS, the higher ranking officials, they knew if they denied a request,
gee, that could be appealed and they might get an answer before the
election, and they weren't going to let that happen in time, at least,
to make a difference in the election. So it's what most people who care
about the Constitution have been afraid of for so long.
I've heard some people, some friends, some Republican friends say
they think Richard Nixon was a great President, but I've read
transcripts of conversations. Anybody who will say one thing to one
person and turn right around immediately thereafter and say exactly the
opposite to another person and play them against each other, I just
can't consider that to be a great President.
We know that under the Nixon administration the IRS was used to
target an enemies list, but now we find that under this administration
it's been used and abused as a process, as a political arm in ways that
Richard Nixon would never have dreamed possible. He never would have
dreamed that anybody would get away with this kind of activity before
an election, especially after Watergate. And so it has been.
So we want to take this time to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that people
are aware and the Record contains the stories of different Tea Party
groups and the difficulties they've had. In that regard, I am quite
proud to yield to my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Steve Pearce.
Hopefully, it won't hurt his reputation for me to call him a dear
friend. That's the way I figure him.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and we will hold
those comments quietly between ourselves here.
You bring up a point that absolutely must be discussed in public. We
need to highlight those things that are going on right now from our
government towards its citizens.
Our Founding Fathers understood this policy very well, this concept.
They said:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When
the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I hear constantly from people in America right now that we fear the
government, we fear the retribution, we fear that they're going to come
in and take things from us, that they're listening to us at all times.
Many would discard that as simply paranoia, until now.
An 83-year-old grandmother in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who I've known
for the last 15 years, since I've gotten into political circles--she's
probably the most joyful, ebullient person in all of politics because
she's here for what comes in the heart, not for what it can do for her.
You see, she's a naturalized citizen who was born in Indonesia.
She came here and ended up, from ages 12 to 16, spending time in the
Japanese internment camps because of her origin, though she's not
Japanese herself. She has experienced the government that would become
heavy-handed in a time of war. But the government that would become
heavy-handed over political processes is a completely different
government than that during World War II.
She helped establish the Children's Freedom Scholarship Fund, where
she hands out patriotic coloring books to youngsters in the Albuquerque
area. And because of these activities that got the attention of the
IRS, they came in and audited and harassed this 83-year-old
grandmother.
I had an email before the scandal broke about one of my constituents
in Socorro, who said: I was audited and we couldn't figure out why. I
talked to my accountant. During the audit, we couldn't figure it out.
There was no unusual question. But during the audit, I noticed a
handwritten name across my file, and I just made mental note of it.
After an audit that asked nothing specific, the auditor asked, Do you
know--and he read the name. The guy says, It doesn't ring a bell to me.
It did not. On the drive home, he said, Wait a minute. That's that
meeting I went to 3 years ago. That's the meeting where I said, I don't
want to be a part of this group. They're interested in the Constitution
and the debt. I know about all that stuff. He writes a small check,
leaves and never goes back. One meeting with the guy who later formed
the Tea Party--it wasn't even formed--causes an audit.
When our government knows this kind of minute information and is
willing to single you out, to veritably persecute you, because
persecution is when we're dealt with differently, we have a different
set of rules, that then qualifies as persecution. When this government
is willing to do that, it causes us to say, Wait. This is not paranoia.
This is justifiable fear of our government.
A small school in my hometown wanted to charter itself and submitted
a 501(c)(3) application. The application was never handled. It went on
and on and on. Our office made a call, and then the person listed on
the organizational chart was called in for an audit.
I will tell you that we were told by the administration spokesman
yesterday, Mr. Lew, the Treasury Secretary, that there's absolutely no
indication that this was anything political.
There's absolutely no indication that it was anything but political,
Mr. Lew. Regardless of what you all say down the street, understand
that the American people are frightened of the government. They also
think, with respect to the idea that we're going to hold people
accountable--we hear that: We're going to hold people accountable;
we're going to bring them in; we're going to look; we're going to find
the facts, and then we're going to hold them accountable.
The American people look with a little bit of curious disregard for
those statements.
Why would Americans be suspicious of the government, that they won't
actually do anything to the people who are involved, that they won't
actually get to the bottom of it? Well, there's a track record in the
last 5 years that has caused the American citizens to look with disdain
at any promises that there will be penalties, that the wrongdoers would
be punished.
You can start with the Fort Hood shooter. He has not yet been brought
to trial. He murdered dozens of people, and he has drawn $287,000 in
pay because they can't take him off the payroll until he comes to
trial. Meanwhile, the victims can't get their pay from the government
that they're supposed to receive, and the American people understand an
injustice is occurring from this White House because they will not
pursue convicting a man that everyone knows has committed murder.
Well, it's said that's one instance. We can, then, take a look at
Fast and Furious. I was one of the first to call for Attorney General
Holder to resign, and we should look more closely at his participation
in the Fast and Furious,
[[Page H2944]]
where rifles were sent across the border and came back and killed an
American employee of the Border Patrol. Yet no one has been held
accountable for that action there.
Mr. GOHMERT. I think that it's worthy to note that apparently, when
there was a Fox News reporter named Rosen that wanted to look into this
Fast and Furious information and hopefully get the scoop, get to the
bottom line of what really happened, instead of this Justice Department
doing as it told the American people, as the Attorney General and all
these other people said as part of this administration, ``We're going
to get the people responsible for this,'' instead of being diligent and
relentless in getting to the bottom of what happened--who approved
these 2,000 or so guns being sold to criminals that would be in
criminal hands and ultimately used to kill hundreds of Mexicans?
{time} 1320
Mexico should be outraged at what this administration has done.
Instead of doing that, they go after a reporter that wants to find out
what happened. They end up going after his phone records. They go after
his email, from what we've learned, apparently. Possibly other family
members. And they still, all these years later, haven't given us real
information on who was responsible, who authorized that, who forced the
sale of those guns. All we know is that this administration has tried
to use Fast and Furious to demand more gun control legislation.
And we have a President that goes down to Mexico in the last 2 or 3
weeks and tells them about how outrageous it is that America has been
selling guns to criminals that are using them in Mexico. He should have
donned his hat and said, Thank you very much, my administration did
that to you, and I'm very sorry. But, oh, no, he blames America without
actually saying, Please, I beg your forgiveness. This was my
administration's doing.
They haven't even gotten to the bottom and, instead, go after the
reporter that tried to find out what happened. That's even more
outrageous, and it goes to just what the gentleman was saying about
people wondering how can we trust this administration when they've said
that they're going to get the people responsible and they've done no
such thing.
Mr. PEARCE. I think the gentleman's points are well made, and to
continue the discussion of why Americans might be skeptical about
whether anyone will pay any price for what has happened in the
targeting of certain groups in this country by the Internal Revenue
Service, it's also important that we look at other cases that have not
yet been prosecuted and in which wrongdoing occurred.
MF Global was a commodities trading firm. Jon Corzine, a Democrat-
elected official, took over that firm. It's against the law, when you
have your money in these trading accounts, whether it be Merrill Lynch
or whoever, it is against the law to take your money out and use it for
corporate governance activities, for corporate organizational
activities. And yet Jon Corzine reached down into customer accounts and
pulled out $1.5 billion of money from account holders and spent it
trying to keep his failing organization together. His efforts failed.
MF Global filed bankruptcy. That was in 2011, and still Mr. Corzine has
not had to answer any questions, has been convicted of no wrongdoing,
hasn't been brought to trial, and hasn't had a grand jury impaneled.
Bernie Madoff, we saw him take billions from investors. And for
decades, the regulators had reports that he was doing it, and not one
regulator has been held accountable for their oversights and omissions.
No one has ever checked.
So when we hear the administration say, Trust us; we're going to get
to the bottom of this IRS scandal and we're going to hold people
accountable, there is an anger building among the American people that
says we don't think that Washington will hold anyone accountable.
You have the AP reporters whose phone records were gotten, and not
just the ones who were involved, but the broad pool of reporters, and
yet nothing is happening to the people in the Justice Department who
did that.
Benghazi is another element where we believe no one will ever be held
accountable. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, What
does it matter?
What it matters, ma'am, is that someone allowed American soldiers to
be killed without reinforcements. C-130s were within flying time.
Drones were there. Lasers were locked onto the artillery that were
firing rounds into that compound, and no one says a word.
And so we have the Internal Revenue Service investigating and holding
audits for law-abiding citizens like this 83-year-old grandmother.
Meanwhile, there are over $1 billion of unpaid taxes by Federal
employees. Why doesn't the Internal Revenue Service go after the
Federal employees who refuse to pay their own taxes.
The highest profile case is Mr. Geithner, who became Treasury
Secretary; and we were told that he's such an important person, he
can't be held to account for small actions like that. Yet one political
party, one political viewpoint has been singled out by this
administration in order to put the chill on people who might be
involved in activities that would disagree with the government.
We've seen governments like this before in American history. We've
seen tyrants before. We've seen tyranny before in world history, and I
think Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are going to stand up on
these issues and demand accountability from Washington. I think the
American people are coming together with a will and a backbone that
will stand up and say, You, the people who perpetrated these evils and
these crimes, will be accountable.
That's what makes this country great. That's what makes this country
the envy of all other nations because we have a Constitution that our
Founding Fathers put in place which gives the people the power. The
government is working at the approval of the American people. I think
the American people are coming together across racial lines, across
party lines, across religious and cultural lines to say that we demand
accountability from our government officials, that we will not allow
any citizen to be treated this way.
The Nation spoke this way when it was Richard Nixon, and I think the
Nation will speak this way under this administration. The parallels are
extreme. When the government gets too strong, it's time for the people
to stand up and say, No, you are not all powerful, that we the people
do establish and ordain.
I think the people of this country are going to question this
establishment and are ordaining. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and I would like to yield to the gentleman
for a question.
It's my understanding that the Albuquerque Tea Party was one that
filed for 501(c)(4) status 3 years ago. I don't know if the gentleman
is familiar with the Albuquerque Tea Party.
Mr. PEARCE. I am. I've been there many times. They're people
concerned about small government. They're concerned about the debt and
the deficit. They understand that these are the biggest risks that we
face, and they speak articulately and coherently about that. They are
also groups that hold elected officials accountable for their actions.
I think those are positive things.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, apparently, after 2 years of waiting, they got a
multipage letter from the IRS asking for really extensive, intrusive
information that it sounds like the IRS should never have had to
inquire about. But here again, it sounds like another case where the
IRS knew if they ruled on whether or not they would have 501(c)(4)
status, they could have appealed and probably had a good case based on
what the IRS has been doing. They wouldn't give them an answer.
Mr. PEARCE. We had been listening. Before everyone recognized it was
a nationwide scandal, we were hearing these reports. No matter that we
disagreed with the Obama administration on policies, we never believed
these reports to be true. So we investigated, but you could never
substantiate. And now, then, 2 and 3 and 4 years later, to find out
that it was systemic, that it was intentional, and that it was
politically motivated causes one to fear for
[[Page H2945]]
the very institution that we call our Constitution and our government.
{time} 1330
Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming the time momentarily, it's interesting, you
know, we find out, as people have been digging deeper over the last few
days, that the President of the United States met with the anti-Tea
Party IRS union chief the day before the agency targeted the Tea Party.
National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley commented
on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama
White House, and made this statement: For me, it's about collaboration.
So it is also important to note, and I didn't know if my dear friend
was familiar with Executive Order 13522, I wasn't until just the last
couple of days, but redstate.com had done a job of finding this.
This was an executive order that the President ordered, beginning in
2009, requiring that government agencies collaborate, consult in pre-
decisional discussions with union bosses that would have to be off the
record, unrecorded, and private, beyond the reach of anyone seeking to
get information about the conversations.
And, in fact, this administration said pre-decisional discussions, by
their nature, should be conducted confidentially among the parties to
the discussions. This confidentiality is an essential ingredient in
building the environment of mutual trust and respect necessary for the
honest exchange of views and collaboration.
Well, this is the President that was going to have the most
transparent administration in American history; yet, I didn't know, in
2009, he ordered these agencies that ought to be completely
transparent, ordered them, his employees, to have meetings before they
make important decisions with union bosses.
So that tells us something too about the atmosphere that was being
created, when a union boss gets to have secret conversations with
government officials that cannot be retrieved by any of us wanting the
administration to be transparent. And we know that those unions were
anti-Tea Party. They wanted them eliminated, and they get to go talk to
the IRS officials that are making decisions about targeting the Tea
Parties. Something seems awry.
I yield to my friend for a comment.
Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I would agree with the gentleman. Something seems
awry.
The American people have a fascinating intuitiveness about them. It's
reported that the unions spent $40 million to defeat Scott Walker. The
reason Scott Walker won, he won 40 percent of the union vote.
People who are supposedly represented by the union bosses understand
that when their leadership begins to take this country in the wrong
direction, that they will exercise their voices and they will speak up;
and that's the very powerful reminder that we, as people, have at the
ballot box.
When the American people are left without government interference,
without government threats, without the IRS intimidation, the American
people choose rightly an awfully big percentage of the time. So I have
the ultimate belief, because I'm hearing Democrats here on Capitol Hill
as outraged as Republicans. I heard Republicans under the Nixon
administration as outraged as Democrats.
It's when we come together in a common belief that our Nation,
regardless of political viewpoints, represents all viewpoints, that we
all have a right to speak, that we all have a right to compel. That's
what's made us strong through our history.
And so those Democrats who now are saying that the IRS and this
administration have gone too far are the strength of this country, as
Republicans were under the Nixon administration.
So I have the ultimate belief that we, as Americans, are coming
together again in our core principles to understand that no government,
no matter which party, is powerful enough to come in and have watchdogs
over us, to allow members of their party to take $1.5 billion from
segregated accounts without being held accountable for the criminal
actions.
They understand that we cannot break the laws of this Nation and
other nations, sending guns to a foreign country illegally; not even
the government can do that.
And they understand there's something intrinsically wrong when we
hear the pleas of our four embassy personnel saying we need help, and
we refuse it.
The American people have had enough. It doesn't matter that it's
Democrat. If it was a Republican, it would be enough too. And I think
the American people are coalescing into an idea that we are a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
And I believe that coalescing is going to provide us the framework
for a new political institution. Don't know what it'll look like, don't
know how it's going to shape up, but the American people are saying
that enough is enough. Enough corruption. Enough scandals. Let's start
cleaning out the mess. And that's what I hear from constituents from
both parties every week I'm at home.
We're going to continue our work here, but I thank the gentleman for
yielding and appreciate his bringing this issue to the floor.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much. It is an important issue.
We have a report here indicating the currently countless numbers,
trying to get a count of groups that were targeted. We've seen reports
that groups, Jewish and Christian groups, that were very supportive of
Israel got heightened scrutiny by the IRS. They were deemed,
apparently, not to be supportive of the President, as the IRS,
apparently, at least their leaders, wanted them to be. And, obviously,
that was after consulting with the union boss, the IRS employees.
Let me just say I know many IRS employees, and there are those who
are afraid to comment because of concern over their repercussions; but
they're outraged because they came into the IRS and they were taught
and they were trained you cannot have any conflict of interest. You
cannot make any decisions based on political bias. You cannot have ever
owed the IRS any money if you're going to work for us.
In fact, there was outrage among some that were afraid to speak up
because they were not allowed. They were told that you cannot underpay
through withholding what you will ultimately owe on your income tax. Or
if you file an amended return where you failed to initially include
income, you may be fired from the IRS.
So the first thing that this President does is go out and hire a guy
who swore, I believe it was three or four years in a row, he swore to
his employer that he would pay the taxes that were due and owing. If
they would just give him all the money, he would see that the taxes on
that money was paid.
And lo and behold, those taxes were not paid, as he swore he would.
And not only was he not barred from working for the IRS; he was made
the boss over the IRS, the boss over the entire Treasury Department.
But the Greater Phoenix Tea Party in Arizona filed for a 501(c)(4) in
October of 2010 and, after waiting 2 years, received a letter demanding
an inordinate amount of information. And so far, even now, this
Internal Revenue Service has refused to give them an answer on their
501(c)(4), effectively keeping them out of the political process for
the 2012 election cycle, and now working, apparently, even now, to keep
them out of the 2014 election cycle.
Amazing how effective the IRS can be when one administration can use
them to further their goals.
{time} 1340
The Mississippi Tea Party filed for a 501(c)4 status in 2009. On
September 28, 2010, the group received a letter from the IRS wanting
additional information, including what their relationship was with the
Tea Party Patriots. But their analysis got rather abusive.
The Portage County Tea Party in Ohio applied for tax exempt status
and they received incredibly onerous questions, harassing questions,
and they answered them, gave them information that no one should have
to provide. Four years later, they're still waiting on an answer.
The Mississippi Tea Party. They're still waiting. The Portage County
Tea Party. They're still waiting. Anyway, it's just incredible.
The Alabama Tea Party we already mentioned. Really abusive requests
were made by the IRS, harassing them. The Texas Patriots Tea Party
filed for a 501(c)(4) status in June of 2012. They received numerous
followup questions
[[Page H2946]]
and have not heard back from the IRS about their status. So they were
effectively kept out of the 2012 political process.
Again, apparently there are reporters that are so far removed from
how the political process has been forced to work. You've got to have
IRS approval or they will come after you individually when you try to
engage in any type of group effort. It used to be there was a freedom
of assembly. You could gather people, assemble people as you want. You
could pay for their bus fare. Unions do it all the time. But they have
a very special status, obviously, with this administration.
One of the great scenes in video history was my old friend, Andrew
Breitbart, coming out of the Coliseum and seeing all these protesters.
He starts asking them about their signs, what they mean, can they give
specific examples about when Glenn Beck lied or things they had on
their signs. They couldn't. And it was amazing. I didn't see it in the
beginning of the video but Andrew saw it immediately. These people were
plants. They were handed these signs by their union. They were told to
stand there and talk about people lying, and just demean individuals
and organizations, as instructed by their union leaders.
When he got to the bottom of it, there was a note somewhere that it
was produced by the union. So he got to the bottom of it. He had a
camera that followed him as he would ask questions very pointedly. It
became very clear they didn't know what they were there about, they
couldn't give individual examples. They were told to go out there and
be a protester. And the unions took care of it. And when the cameras
were making them look bad, they were ordered to get back on the union
bus and leave the area by the union bosses. Andrew had that gift. He
could see right through all the baloney. It's a shame he's no longer
with us. But what he has left is an organization that's doing even more
amazing things.
You had the Ottawa County Patriots from Michigan file for 501(c)(3)
status August 22, 2011. They're still waiting for a ``specialist'' to
approve their application, despite numerous attempts to get
clarification from the IRS. So they were totally kept out of the 2012
political process because of the partisan IRS leadership that would not
even give a ruling on these things. It wasn't a problem for
organizations that were supportive of the administration, apparently.
There were groups like the Louisa, Virginia, Tea Party in Virginia
that decided not to apply after they heard from other Tea Party groups
just how abusive the IRS was being. And their leaders didn't want to go
through individually what other Tea Party leaders were having to go
through. So the Louisa VA Tea Party never got their lawful status from
the IRS. All of those people were effectively kept out of the 2012
political cycle by this partisan IRS work and effort.
The DeLAND 912 organization from Florida also heard about the horror
stories of how abusive the IRS became if you applied for legal status
as a Tea Party, so they didn't apply. Once again, the IRS was
successful in their political endeavors in silencing another group of
people from Florida during that political cycle.
Goose Creek 912 Project from South Carolina, they were preparing to
file for a 501(c)(3) status or 501(c)(4) but after they heard about all
of the harassment of other Tea Party groups, they voted unanimously not
to file. The IRS partisan efforts worked. Another group of Americans
were silenced because of the partisan political work of the IRS.
The McLean Tea Party in Illinois, another case where they decided not
to apply after they got word of all the horror stories about the IRS
abuses of individual Tea Party leaders and the individual Tea Party
constituents themselves of the intrusive, abusive questions and
information that was being demanded by the IRS.
The Lanier Tea Party Patriots from Georgia also heard about the
widespread, massive abuse of Tea Parties that applied for legal status.
So yet another group of people was silenced by the partisan, abusive
Internal Revenue Service.
As I said, I know numerous employees of the IRS that would never
think of being abusive like this. It is completely an anomaly to their
way of thinking. It is counterintuitive to everything they have been
taught and trained. But somehow this administration comes in and all of
a sudden they see the IRS as the greatest political gift any partisan
group could ever have and they use and abuse it after consulting, as
ordered, by the President of the United States. They are ordered to
have secret meetings with union bosses before they make decisions,
which we now know occurred before they made decisions to go after the
Tea Parties.
So the President of the United States signs Executive Order 13522 and
orders an agency that is supposed to be completely nonpartisan,
nonpolitical, to meet with an extremely political, extremely partisan
boss before they make decisions. It is staggering.
So we know there's some that ask, Did the President know, did he not
know? When you see that the President of the United States ordered
meetings with partisan union bosses before decisions could be made by
administrative heads at the IRS, it doesn't seem to me to matter much
whether the President knew that they specifically targeted the Tea
Parties. He ordered them to meet and to take in consideration what the
union bosses said. If he ordered that those be completely confidential
and beyond the scope of Freedom of Information Act requests, then there
has to be some responsibility taken where the buck ultimately stops.
{time} 1350
The Rowan County Tea Party in Tennessee--hopefully I'm saying that
correctly--the good folks there filed for 501(c)(4) status in February
of 2010. They received demands for excessive amounts of information,
some of which is not required by law whatsoever.
Just 2 weeks ago, after over 3 years, and being kept out of the 2012
election cycle, having any input--not just on the President's race, but
on issues--they didn't care about political candidates; they cared
about issues. They knew if they could form these political Tea Parties,
they could have an effect. Whether it was a Democrat, Republican, a
Libertarian or an Independent that came forward, they knew that if they
were a group as a Tea Party, they could get powerful enough and have
their voices heard loudly, as they spoke loudly enough as a group, that
somebody--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent--somebody
would step forward and say I support what you believe, and I'm with you
on the issues.
They were not about a party. They spent a lot of time being mad at
the Republican Party, like I do. They weren't about a party; they were
about the process. They wanted a constitutional country and a
government that acted within the confines of the Constitution. And the
IRS was determined to subjugate them, to punish them, to abuse them,
and abuse the process of the IRS to make them pay for having the
audacity to speak up or try to speak up, as did our Founders.
I can't help but note, I was tickled, some left-wing drone
organization--drone basically being unmanned; they're not using their
brains; they're just doing as they're directed--came after me for
saying here on the floor, gee, the IRS might have shot the original Tea
Party participants. Well, obviously that's hyperbole. But I found in
Washington if you use sarcasm, you speak metaphorically, allegorically,
use hyperbole, that it's often lost here.
We were having a discussion, for example, about endangered species.
And I mentioned, gee, I understood--wasn't sure if it was true--but I
understood there had been a pair of spotted owls that we were told for
years couldn't mate anywhere but virgin woods, untouched by human
hands, that may have been seen mating in a Kmart sign. In sheer
sarcasm, in irony, I said, you know, a lot of Kmarts have been out of
business. Maybe we need to see if that's really true and, if so, maybe
get Kmart signs and see if they ought to be declared endangered and
maybe have a Kmart sign forest where these little owls could mate like
crazy out there in the Kmart sign.
And I look over at people and reporters, folks sitting there, and you
could see people looking at each other: Do you think he's serious?
Anyway, it's an interesting place to--not live, but work here in
Washington, D.C.
You have the Rochester Tea Party Patriots in Minnesota. They filed
for 501(c)(3) status in August 2010. The group finally received their
501(c)(4)
[[Page H2947]]
status 2 years later in 2012, but not soon enough to have the kind of
effect that they could have to make nominees, potential nominees,
accountable for abiding by the rule of law and following the
Constitution, as they wanted to do.
The Chattanooga Tea Party in Tennessee, they filed for 501(c)(4)
status in November of 2009. The group received a letter from the
Cincinnati IRS office in July 2010 with extensive, intrusive, abusive
questions and demands. After 4 years, they received notification that
they were approved. Apparently, as this scandal was about to break, the
IRS realized, gee, well, we got what we wanted; we kept them out of the
12 election cycle so they could not have any influence whatsoever
there. And we're about to get in trouble, so why don't we start giving
approval to some of these folks. And we're seeing that happen.
The San Angelo Tea Party--the town that my parents lived in briefly
right after they got married, San Angelo Tea Party back in Texas--they
filed for tax-exempt status. But after receiving the intrusive,
abusive, mean-spirited demand for information that the IRS had no
business inquiring after, they withdrew their application. Once again,
the IRS didn't have a chilling effect; they had a freezing effect.
Froze them out and kept them from being able to participate as a group
in the 2012 election cycle.
The San Fernando Valley Patriots in California filed for 501(c)(4)
status in the fall of 2010. The group heard nothing from the IRS until
February of 2012, when they received a packet from the IRS in the mail
giving the group a 20-day time period to respond. After the abuse, the
demands, the intrusiveness, the outrageous activity of the IRS, the San
Fernando Valley Patriots in California finally, in August of 2012, felt
like they had no choice but to crater under the abusive weight and
power of a partisan, mean-spirited IRS leadership; and they pulled
their application in order to protect their members from this kind of
abuse.
So you've got to say, the executive order in 2009 by the President of
the United States--current President--ordering the extremely partisan
union bosses to be consulted on decisions by the IRS, find out that the
union boss met with the President right before the decision was made as
well. I guess when you're the President, you don't have to sign an
executive order requiring that you have secret, confidential meetings
with union bosses before you make decisions. You just do it, appears to
be the case.
Then we find out, gee--and this is a brand-new story, this one by
David French dated May 22, yesterday afternoon--that it wasn't just Tea
Parties; it wasn't just constitutional groups; it wasn't just pro-
Israel groups. The article title is ``IRS Morality: Defend Planned
Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families With Audits.'' In the article,
skimming on down, it says:
During the 2012 filing season, 90 percent of the returns
that claimed a refundable adoption credit were subject to
additional review to determine if an examination was
necessary.
{time} 1400
The most common reasons were income and a lack of
documentation.
It notes that:
Sixty-nine percent of all adoption credit claims during the
2012 filing season were selected for audit.
Of the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55
percent ended with no change in the tax owed or refund due in
fiscal year 2012. The median refund amount involved in these
audits was over $15,000 and the median adjusted gross income
of the taxpayers involved is about $64,000.
These would be considered middle class Americans.
The average adoption credit correspondence audit currently
takes 126 days, causing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting
for refunds.
It's interesting because we get word--as the article said--that the
IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one
alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood in
order to have or keep their tax exempt status.
It points out this statistic:
In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90
percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went
on to actually audit 69 percent.
And that more details can be obtained from the Taxpayer Advocate
Service.
It's really outrageous. And it's pretty clear to anybody familiar
with the political process here in Washington that most people that are
very supportive of adoption are not in favor of abortion. So if you
want to go against--as the IRS, if you want to go after the opponents
of Planned Parenthood, you want to go after the opponents of killing
babies in utero, then if you go after parents that adopt children--a
very, very costly process--you can have a very chilling or freezing
effect on those parents who just want to adopt a child, adopt children,
give them a loving home.
And this IRS' morality--as the article points out, because of the
current leadership that is now under scrutiny--go after these middle-
income folks that are not supportive of abortion and want to adopt,
we'll teach them a lesson. It's very clear, it just screams from the
statistics and information that we get from the IRS.
It's also worth noting--as prior articles have--that people have
claimed, not the adoptive tax credit, but the child tax credit has been
claimed--as has been shown many times--by people who did not legally
come into the country. And there have been articles about that. Of
course, I guess, everybody knows they'll never get a Pulitzer Prize for
incredible investigative reporting on the billions of dollars that may
be obtained by people who come into the country illegally and then have
learned you can claim a tax credit and get more money back than you put
in. Oh, no, even if you don't have a Social Security number--as the law
currently requires--to get that child tax credit, the IRS thought: Hey,
we've got a good idea, we don't care that Congress said you've got to
have a Social Security number, hey, we want to get all the tax income
in we can, and we hear from some of the folks in Congress that there
are people somewhere out there in the shadows, so we'll just give them
a taxpayer number, even if they don't have a Social Security number,
and let them get that child tax credit from there. So there are plenty
of people that have come out of the so-called shadows to claim a child
tax credit.
That's why Robert Rector, in talking with him this week, he says the
projection probably that if people who are here undocumented,
illegally, whatever you want to call it, are given legal status, then
it will likely cost the country around $10 billion that these
individuals will be able to get back in child tax credit once they're
legally here and that many are getting even now. An estimated $1
billion--one estimate I read was $4 billion--that we're currently
paying out from the Treasury to people that are getting more back than
they paid in who are not legally here, don't have a Social Security
number.
So they're not going after those folks. Not auditing, not going in
and demanding to know where are all these children you claim to get all
this money back--$20,000, $30,000 you're getting back from the
government for a child tax credit--where are all the children? Oh, no,
they're not going after them. No. They much prefer to go after what
some of these partisan political leaders in the IRS see as their
political enemies.
When you have people like that heading up the IRS, you don't have to
have an enemies list, like Richard Nixon had. You've got your friends
at the IRS that are doing it for you.
So when we hear claims of outrage and we see that these people have
suffered absolutely no consequences from this President--the boss--as a
result of their outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional activity, then it
seems that maybe the outrage is not as loud as we were being told that
it originally has been.
And then when you find out that the AP--certainly hasn't helped me
any, but that doesn't matter, we're supposed to have a free press--if
they want to go after a guy that's conservative that has a southern
accent, that's their prerogative. But we find out that the White
House--the Justice Department at least--the Justice Department went
after the AP, just like they did Rosen at Fox News, they go after the
AP and get hundreds of phone numbers because they say they're after
this egregious leak. The Attorney General told our committee last week,
Gee, it's one of the most egregious leaks--not the most egregious, one
of the most egregious
[[Page H2948]]
leaks--he had ever seen. Turns out all of the leaks that allow him to
go after a conservative group or to intimidate a group like the AP, to
them they're egregious. When we find out, Mr. Speaker, he could have
just looked at the records of a handful of people in the
administration--he chose not to do that, it might have embarrassed the
administration--he abuses the freedom of the press.
It's time that people who are responsible are made accountable.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________