Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4113-S4116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 487

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the facts
regarding the ongoing IRS scandal that the Obama administration refuses
to investigate, refuses to prosecute, refuses to address with honesty
and integrity. I want to talk about the facts we know and the facts we
don't know, and how we as the Senate can demonstrate fidelity to law
and the integrity of the U.S. Government.
Let's talk about what we know.
We know that more than 1 year ago on May 14, 2013, the inspector
general of the Treasury Department said that beginning in 2010 the IRS
had improperly targeted conservative citizen groups, tea party groups,
pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day the inspector general's
report was made public, President Obama had described what occurred as
``intolerable and inexcusable.'' As President Obama put it: ``Americans
have a right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.''
Well, if President Obama was speaking the truth when he said over a
year ago that Americans have a right to be angry about this, then today
after over a year of obstruction of justice, of refusing to investigate
or prosecute what happened under President Obama's own standard, the
Americans have a right to be far more than angry about it.
Likewise, the very same day the inspector general report came out,
Attorney General Eric Holder said the IRS targeting the conservative
groups was ``outrageous and unacceptable.'' That was more than a year
ago.
What has happened in the year and 2 months that have passed since
then? Although both the President and the Attorney General profess
outrage and anger, not a single person has been indicted--not a single
person. Although both the President and the Attorney General said they
would investigate this matter, it has been publicly reported that no
indictments are planned. In fact, President Obama went on national
television during the Super Bowl and categorically stated, ``There was
not even a smidgeon of corruption to be found at the IRS.''
How far we had come from the day the scandal broke when he said he
was angry and the American people had a right to be angry. Fast forward
a few months later and he goes on television and says there is not a
smidgeon of corruption.
That is a remarkable statement for the President to have made,
because Attorney General Eric Holder 4 days earlier had told the Senate
Judiciary Committee that there was an ongoing investigation being
conducted at the IRS.
President Obama's comments and Eric Holder's comments are facially
inconsistent. Either Eric Holder was telling the truth, that there is,
in fact, a meaningful ongoing investigation, or President Obama was
telling the truth when he said conclusively there is not a smidgeon of
corruption. One or the other was not telling the truth or perhaps
President Obama was simply prejudging the investigation. Perhaps
President Obama was simply attempting to influence its outcome, making
clear that the outcome desired from the White House is that there is
not a smidgeon of corruption. What happened to the American people
having a right to be angry? Now the President is instead telling
investigators the conclusion they should reach.
Regardless, it is beyond dispute that the Obama administration, the
Justice Department, has not held anyone accountable for this gross
abuse of power.
In a hearing in January of this year, Attorney General Eric Holder
refused to answer whether even a single victim of the wrongful
targeting has been interviewed.
Let me repeat that. The victims who were targeted wrongly by the
IRS--the citizens--for exercising their political free speech rights,
the Attorney General refused to answer if they had even bothered to
interview any of those citizens.
We also note some of the emails that have been made public give the
appearance that the Department of Justice may have been directly
involved in the illegal targeting of citizen groups based on their
political views.
Most stunningly, we know that the lead attorney investigating this
matter is a major Democratic donor and a major donor to President
Obama. Indeed, she has given over $6,000 to President Obama and
Democrats in recent years.
No reasonable person would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard
Nixon. Yet the Obama administration is telling the American people the
investigation into the wrongful targeting of conservatives will be led
by a major Obama Democratic donor. That is contemptuous. It is
contemptuous of the law; it is contemptuous of the American people. One
would think that if you appoint a major Obama donor to lead the
investigation, it is likely that the victims would not be interviewed,
that no one would be indicted. And, wonder of wonders, what has
happened? The victims have not been interviewed and no one has been
indicted.
But that is not all. We have seen Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS
office that illegally targeted conservative citizens, go before
Congress and repeatedly plead the Fifth. When a senior government
official takes the Fifth, that is an action that should be taken very
seriously. Yet it seems in this town partisan politics trumps fidelity
to law. What Lois Lerner said in the House of Representatives by
pleading the Fifth is effectively standing there saying, ``If I answer
your question, I may well implicate myself in criminal conduct.'' That
is chilling.
Let me note with sadness that the Democratic Members of this Chamber
seem to have no concern about a senior IRS official pleading the Fifth
repeatedly because truthfully answering the questions could implicate
her in criminal conduct.
Throughout it all Americans have been told that the Obama
administration would find out what happened and would take the
necessary actions.
Indeed, the new head of the IRS, Commissioner John Koskinen, promised
as much. Now we find out that this new Commissioner is also a major
donor to President Obama and Democratic causes. This new Commissioner
of the IRS has given nearly $100,000 to the Democratic Party, including
$7,300 to President Obama. What fairminded person would entrust not one
but two major Obama donors to investigate how the IRS used political
power to go after the enemies of President Obama? Not one but two--the
lead lawyers in the Department of Justice heading up the
noninvestigation that is not interviewing the victims, that is not
indicting anyone, and the head of the IRS giving nearly $100,000 to
Democratic causes.
We received even more striking news, that Commissioner Koskinen tells
us the IRS lost Lois Lerner's emails. Oops, sorry. The dog ate my
homework.
Madam President, if you or I tried that in our IRS returns, they
wouldn't accept that excuse from a citizen. We are told the hard drive
crashed and the documents are irretrievable under any circumstances. We
also know the IRS didn't follow the law when it failed to

[[Page S4114]]

report the hard drive crash that we are told occurred. But make no
mistake, these emails haven't just been lost. These emails have been
deleted, taped over, and the hard drive physically destroyed ccording
to public news reports. This is Rosemary Woods, when you have Federal
Government officials destroying evidence. In the ordinary parlance that
is called obstruction of justice. The hard drive magically collapses,
magically crashes, and is physically destroyed right after the
investigation begins and, I would remind you, the investigation that
has resulted in Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth twice.
We are supposed to believe that the emails from the IRS officials in
charge of the division that illegally targeted political organizations
and has repeatedly pleaded the Fifth to avoid incriminating herself,
that her emails have simply vanished innocuously. It happens. It
happens to people in the middle of illegal acts. Their records
magically disappear right when the investigators are seeking to
discover them.
This is an outrage. This is a scandal. This is an insult to anyone
concerned about the rule of law, and no one in the Senate, regardless
of political party, should stand by and accept this.
But it doesn't end there.
On Wednesday it was reported that Lois Lerner flagged a speaking
invitation for Republican Senator Charles Grassley for examination.
Senator Grassley is the highest ranking Republican on the Senate
Judiciary Committee who has been a strong and powerful voice for
accountability at the Department of Justice. It is curious that she
would be so eager to subject Senator Grassley for extra scrutiny based
on a speaking invitation.
Right now, today, the White House is in control of Democrats. There
will come a time when Democrats no longer control the White House and
the administration. I would ask every Democratic Member of this body,
how comfortable are you with the precedent that the IRS can single out
Democratic Senators who might disagree with the President's political
position? The targeting of Chuck Grassley, the singling out of Chuck
Grassley, ought to trouble every single Member of this body.
On Tuesday it was reported that the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in
damages to the National Organization for Marriage because the IRS
admittedly unlawfully released confidential information of members of
that group to its political opposition.
Let me repeat that. IRS officials have publicly admitted--this is not
inference, this is not suggestion, this is what they have admitted--
that they leaked personal tax information for the purpose of
intimidating a conservative group to the political opposition of that
group. That is textbook abuse of power. And I would note the $50,000
fine--which, by the way, has been paid by U.S. taxpayers--the $50,000
fine does nothing to address the partisan political corruption at the
IRS, the abuse of power, or the coverup. A fine does not signal the
problem has been fixed.
I would note, by the way, where are the Democratic Members of this
body standing and saying it is wrong for the IRS to illegally hand over
personal information from individual taxpayers for partisan purposes to
their political opponents?
I want to underscore that the IRS has admitted they did this and paid
a $50,000 fine and the Democratic Members of this body are apparently
not troubled at all. If they are troubled, they keep their troubles
very quiet and to themselves.
Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to
target an administration's political enemy.
When a Republican President, Richard Nixon, attempted to use the IRS
to target his political enemies, it was wrong. It was an abuse of
power, and he was rightfully condemned on both sides of the aisle. Both
Democrats and Republicans stood up to President Nixon when he attempted
to use the IRS to target his political enemies and said: This is wrong.
The Obama administration didn't just attempt to do so, it succeeded.
It carried out a concerted effort and targeted those who were perceived
to be political enemies of the President and targeted those individual
citizens. The administration then put two major Democratic donors in
charge of the investigation and covered up the truth, including
conveniently losing emails from the central player in this figure who
has twice pleaded the Fifth.
It was wrong when Richard Nixon tried to use the IRS to target his
political enemies, and it was wrong when the Obama administration tried
and succeeded to do the same. The difference is when Richard Nixon did
so, Republicans had the courage to stand up to Members of their own
party. It saddens me that there is not a single Democratic Member of
this body who has had the courage to stand up to their own party and
say: This abuse of power--using the IRS to target citizens for
political beliefs--is wrong.
We need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make
sure justice is served and that our constitutional rights to free
speech, to assembly, and to privacy are protected.
It saddens me to say that the U.S. Department of Justice, under
Attorney General Eric Holder, has become the most partisan Department
of Justice in the history of our country. I say this as a former
associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice. I
can tell you there are Democratic alumni across this country who are
saddened and heartbroken to see the Department of Justice becoming
effectively an arm of the Democratic National Committee.
IRS officials have stonewalled at every turn, and we should not wait
a single minute to put an end to the intimidation and bullying of the
American people. These are not the actions of a government that
respects its citizens. We need to restore that respect, that government
officials work for the people and not the other way around.
The Department of Justice has a storied history. There is a history
of attorneys general standing up to political pressure, even against
the Presidents who have appointed them. Listen, political pressure in
this town is nothing new and attorneys general throughout history have
had a special mettle of being willing to look into the eyes of the
President who appointed them and willing to say: I care more about the
rule of law than any partisan allegiance I might have.
When President Richard Nixon faced charges of abusing government
power for partisan ends, his attorney general Elliot Richardson, a
Republican, appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor. Likewise,
when President Bill Clinton faced charges of ethical impropriety, his
attorney general Janet Reno, a Democrat, appointed Robert Fiske as
independent counsel. Sadly, the current attorney general has refused to
live up to that bipartisan tradition of independence, of integrity, and
of fidelity to law.
I have repeatedly called on Attorney General Eric Holder to remove
the investigation from the hands of a major Obama donor and put it
instead in the hands of a special prosecutor with meaningful
independence who, at a minimum, is not a major Democratic donor. Even
the very slightest respect for the rule of law would suggest that the
attorney general should not be part and parcel of the political and
partisan coverup.
Therefore, in a few moments I intend to ask for unanimous consent to
call up a Senate resolution expressing the opinion of the Senate that
the Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate
and prosecute--if the facts support--the IRS targeting of Americans and
its potential coverup of those actions.
When I asked the Attorney General whether the Department of Justice
investigated the direct involvement of political appointees at the
White House--up to and including the President--Attorney General Holder
refused to answer that question. That is always the hardest thing for
an attorney general to do: Ask the question that raises partisan peril.
That is why attorneys general are supposed to be nonpartisan and owe
their fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of this United States
and to the American people.
The House of Representatives has passed a similar resolution to the
one I am submitting. It was sponsored by Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio
on May 7, 2014. The resolution passed in the House 250 to 168. Twenty-
six Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.
Why is it that Democrats in the House of Representatives can muster
up the courage to stand up to the partisan pressure from the White
House.

[[Page S4115]]

Yet in the Senate we hear crickets chirping. This used to be the body
praised for its independence and for its ability to stand up to abuse
of power.
Just today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Obama
administration for the 12th time in the last 2 years in its assertion
of overbroad executive authority. This time it asserted that the
President unconstitutionally attempted to circumvent the checks and
balances of the Constitution by unilaterally appointing recess
appointments while the Senate was not in recess.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously, by a vote of 9 to 0, said the
President's actions were unconstitutional in that case, and once again,
as with the IRS, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle were
silent. How is it there is no longer a Robert Byrd, that there is no
longer a Ted Kennedy, that there are no longer any Democrats who will
defend the institutional integrity of the Senate? How is it when the
Supreme Court concludes unanimously that the President's intrusion on
the Senate's constitutional authority is unconstitutional not a single
Senate Democrat has the courage to stand up to this President? How is
it in the face of a senior IRS official repeatedly pleading the Fifth,
how is it in the face of the IRS admitting it wrongfully handed over
private personal IRS tax data to the political opponents of a citizens
group and paid a $50,000 fine for it, how is it that not a single
Democratic Senator does not have the courage to speak up? At what point
does it become too much? At what point does it become embarrassing?
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, whom I might note is a
liberal and voted for President Obama in 2008, said that President
Obama has become the embodiment of the imperial President. He described
how Barack Obama has become the President Richard Nixon always wished
he could be. I am sorry to say that he has done so with the active
aiding and abetting of 55 Democratic Members of this Senate because
when Democratic Members of this Senate or any Member of this Senate
stands by and allows the President to trample on the rule of law, then
any one of us who remains silent is explicit in undermining the
Constitution.

This resolution should be unanimous. If the tables were turned and
this were a Republican President and a Republican Attorney General had
appointed a major Republican donor to lead the investigation into the
wrongful targeting of Democrats and destroyed emails and hard drives
and publicly admitted to leaking private citizen information to the
political opponents of Democrats, the Democratic side of this Chamber
would rightly be lighting their hair on fire.
If this were a Republican administration, every media outlet would
have banner headlines every single day. I can assure you that at least
some Republican Senators would be standing up and saying this abuse of
power is wrong.
This resolution should be unanimous because everyone should agree
that an investigation should be beyond reproach and should not be
handed over to major Democratic donors.
If the allegation--which the report of the inspector general of
Treasury has already confirmed in significant respect--is of abuse of
government power of the IRS to target citizens for their political
beliefs, then you cannot entrust the investigation to someone who is
partisan and has a political interest in protecting the party in power.
If Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a
special prosecutor, he should be impeached.
When an attorney general refuses to enforce the rule of law, mocks
the rule of law, and corrupts the Department of Justice by conducting a
nakedly partisan investigation to cover up political wrongdoing, that
conduct, by any reasonable measure, constitutes high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Attorney General Eric Holder has the opportunity to do the right
thing. He can appoint a special prosecutor with meaningful independence
who is not a major Obama donor. Yet every time the Attorney General has
been called on to do this, he has defiantly said no. In fact, he said
in writing in his discretion, no. If Attorney General Eric Holder
continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the
abuse of power by the IRS against the American people, he should be
impeached.
I agree with President Obama when he said on the day this scandal
broke, the American people have a right to be angry. If the American
people had a right to be angry over a year ago when the scandal broke,
the fact that it has now been covered up and the fact that a partisan
investigation has refused to begin to scratch the surface of what
happened should make the American people more than angry. It should
move them to action. It should move them to accountability. It should
move them to hold the officials of our government responsible.
Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of S. Res. 487. I further ask consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as the chairman of the Finance Committee,
which oversees the IRS, I have a question as to whether bringing in a
special prosecutor would be a good use of taxpayer money in this case.
I am going to spend a few minutes laying out what is actually going on
with respect to this matter.
There are already five IRS investigations that have either concluded
or are ongoing. There was the original Treasury inspector general
audit, in addition to ongoing investigations by four congressional
committees, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means
Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The Senate Finance Committee, the committee I chair, has been
conducting a bipartisan investigation for more than a year. I repeat:
This is a bipartisan investigation. In fact, the committee's report was
essentially ready to be released last week when the IRS informed us
that some emails were missing because of a hard drive crash. So that
colleagues understand just how bipartisan our effort has been, Senator
Hatch and I have worked closely on this every step of the way since I
had the honor of becoming the chair of the Finance Committee. When we
heard of the hard drive problem, the two of us, a Democrat and a
Republican, immediately asked the IRS Commissioner to come to my office
where we asked pointed questions of Commissioner Koskinen. We didn't
wait 10 days. We didn't wait a week. The two of us, a Democrat and a
Republican, felt it was an important part of our committee's bipartisan
inquiry, so we had Mr. Koskinen come to our office. And this has just
been one example--it happens to be very recent--of the bipartisan
efforts that have been made looking into this matter.
The Finance Committee staff, Democrats and Republicans, have reviewed
over 700,000 pages of documents and interviewed 30 IRS employees. Those
interviews were done jointly. We had Democrats and Republicans doing
them together. Now, as we continue to look at how this is going to
unfold, the Treasury Department Inspector General--that is Mr. Russell
George--has agreed to investigate the most recent matter, and he
briefed our staff just yesterday on the work plan for getting their
investigation done promptly. Once the committee determines what
happened with the hard drive crashes, then the committee will, again on
a bipartisan basis, move forward with releasing our report--the report
that was almost ready to be released when the IRS informed us that the
emails were missing because of a hard drive crash and when Senator
Hatch and I together brought Mr. Koskinen immediately to my office.
I heard my colleague say that things would be different if this were
a Republican administration. Well, I want it understood--I want every
Senator to understand this. Senator Hatch and I would be doing exactly
what we are doing now, with the same diligence, if it was a Republican
administration. That, in my view, is the bottom line, because that is
what bipartisanship is

[[Page S4116]]

all about. That is the way an important inquiry ought to be handled.
There is nothing of value that a special prosecutor would bring to
the table, and it certainly would involve significant cost to American
taxpayers. In fact, many of us can remember special prosecutors abusing
their power, spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and going
on for years and years without concluding their investigations. Too
often, special prosecutors have turned into lawyers' full employment
programs. They ought to be reserved for when there is evidence of
criminal wrongdoing inside the government. It would be premature to
appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan Finance Committee
report almost finished.
I will just close by saying I am a pretty bipartisan fellow. In fact,
sometimes I get a fair amount of criticism for being too bipartisan. I
want it understood this is a bipartisan inquiry that is being done by
the book. Senator Hatch and I are looking at these matters together. We
talk about it frequently. Those witnesses were interviewed together. We
brought Mr. Koskinen in immediately. My view is that it would be
premature to appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan Finance
Committee report almost finished.
If we look at this in terms of what is at issue now, we can bring the
facts to light with our own investigators and our own bipartisan
inquiry and avoid the special prosecutor disasters of the past.
I object to the Senator's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oregon for his
impassioned comments. I would note for the Record a few things he did
not say. My friend from Oregon chose not to say a word about the fact
that Lois Lerner, a senior IRS official, has twice pleaded the Fifth in
front of the House of Representatives. To that he had not a single
response.
My friend from Oregon chose to say not a word to the fact that the
IRS singled out Senator Chuck Grassley for special scrutiny. To that,
he said not a word.
My friend from Oregon chose to say not a word to the fact that the
IRS has now admitted to illegally handing over private personal
information from a citizen group to its political opponents for
partisan political purposes, and has paid a $50,000 fine. That is not
an allegation. That is not a theory. That is what the IRS has admitted
to and paid a $50,000 fine for with taxpayer funds. Yet I am sorry to
say my friend from Oregon had not a word to say about that abuse of
power.
I mentioned before that from the Democratic Members of this Chamber,
when it comes to the abuse of power by the Obama administration, there
are crickets chirping.

Now, I am pleased that my friend from Oregon and the
Finance Committee has engaged in an investigation of what
occurred. We don't know what that investigation will
conclude. But I find it interesting that he said it is
premature for a special prosecutor. Fourteen months ago was
when President Obama said: I am angry and the American people
have a right to be angry--14 months ago. Fourteen months and
not a single person has been indicted. Fourteen months and
most of the victims haven't been interviewed. Fourteen months
they have publicly announced they don't intend to indict
anyone. Yet, it is premature. If the American people had a
right to be angry 14 months ago, which is what President
Obama told us, what should we feel 14 months later after
partisan stonewalling and obstruction of justice? The
American people had a right to be angry.

I would note a Senate committee is conducting an investigation and
will issue a report, but the Senate committee can't indict anyone. The
Senate committee can't prosecute anyone. My friend from Oregon says it
is premature to have a special prosecutor because, apparently, holding
people who break the laws, who commit criminal conduct to abuse IRS
power to target individual citizens based on their political views--
apparently, holding them accountable--is not a priority for a single
Democratic member of this Chamber. That saddens me.
It saddens me that we don't have 100 Senators in this room saying,
regardless of what party we are in, it is an embarrassment to have this
``investigation''--and I put that word in quotes, because a real
investigation involves interviewing the victims; a real investigation
involves following the evidence where it leads. I would note my friend
from Oregon, in describing the Senate committee's investigation,
mentioned that they interviewed some IRS employees, but notably absent
from whom he said they interviewed was anyone at the White House,
anyone political. Apparently, they were not interviewed. We don't know.
But he didn't mention them if they were.

It is an embarrassment that this so-called investigation is led by a
partisan Democratic donor who has given over $6,000 to President Obama
and Democrats. It is an embarrassment that the IRS obstruction of
justice is led by a major Democratic donor who has given nearly
$100,000. Every one of us takes an oath to the Constitution. Every one
of us owes fidelity to rule of law. When we have the Department of
Justice behaving like an arm of the DNC, protecting the political
interests of the White House instead of upholding the law, it
undermines the liberty of every American. I am saddened that Democratic
Members of this Chamber will not stand up and say: I have a higher
obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law and the American
people than I have to my Democratic Party. That is a sad state of
affairs, but it is also a state of affairs that is outraging the
American people, that is waking up the American people.
President Obama had it right when he said 14 months ago the American
people are right to be angry about this. He was correct. And when
elected officials, when appointed officials of the Obama administration
mock the rule of law, demonstrate contempt for Congress, and abuse
their power against the individual citizenry, against we the people,
the people have a natural and immediate remedy that is available in
November every 2 years. This November, I am confident the American
people will follow the President's advice and demonstrate that they are
angry about the abuse of power and even angrier about the partisan
coverup in which all 55 Democratic Senators have actively aided and
abetted.
If Attorney General Eric Holder is unwilling to appoint a special
prosecutor, if he insists on keeping this prosecution in the control of
a major Obama donor, then Attorney General Eric Holder should be
impeached, because the rule of law matters more than any partisan
political problem.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator
from Texas for raising this issue of the IRS. I have commented over the
last few days that if this was, in fact, a Republican administration
that had been engaged in this issue, this would have led every newscast
in America. It would have been leading every newscast in America for
the last week. It would have been compared to Watergate. Instead, what
we have seen is the American news media, by and large, has largely
ignored it.
One of the commentators last night on television added up all the
minutes they dedicated to a soccer player who bit some other competitor
compared to the amount of time they have dedicated to the fact that one
of the most powerful agencies of the U.S. Government not just destroyed
records, potentially--but even now we have been given news they tried
to target a U.S. Senator for an internal audit--and the soccer player
won. He got a lot more attention. There was a lot more news coverage
paid to the guy who bit somebody than to the issue of the IRS.
So I thank the Senator from Texas for raising it here today before we
head to our respective States for the Fourth of July because it is an
issue that deserves our attention.

____________________