[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.

                          ____________________