[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4369-4371]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      HOLDING THE IRS ACCOUNTABLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments 
of my dear friends' Special Order earlier by Congressman Ron DeSantis.
  I know there were a number of people who spoke, but the ones I 
actually saw and heard--Congressman DeSantis, a dear friend, dear 
friend Ted Yoho, and my dear friend Jim Jordan--did an extraordinary 
job of laying out why we simply have to show that this House has 
standards, that Congress has rules, and you can only thumb your nose so 
far. You can only lie and defraud and, in some ways, be incompetent 
before there has to be an impeachment.
  And with regard to the head of the Internal Revenue Service, the case 
has been made very effectively in the prior Special Order. So I want to 
add on to that by reference to this article from the Washington 
Examiner entitled, ``IRS Chief:''--basically, the IRS chief is saying 
this; this is the headline--``Agency Encourages Illegal Immigrant Theft 
of Social Security Numbers to File Tax Returns.''

                              {time}  1915

  It is by Rudy Takala, dated April 12.
  It says, ``The IRS is struggling to ensure that illegal immigrants 
are able to illegally use Social Security numbers for legitimate 
purposes, the agency's head told senators on Tuesday, without allowing 
the numbers to be used for `bad' reasons.''
  Now, that is the IRS director's reasoning. It is okay for someone 
illegally in the United States to be engaged in identity theft.
  This is the IRS director that has presided over the massive 
manipulation of the Internal Revenue Service as a tool of this 
administration and the Democratic political party back in 2012 to 
prevent conservative groups, groups whose one foundational basis was 
the Constitution as written, groups who believed that people should 
follow the law.
  This director's IRS targeted such people and, in some cases, kept 
them from getting a tax ID number and a verification that they could 
raise money. They kept them from participating in the 2012 election 
because President Obama was up for reelection, of course.
  And now he has the gall to go before a Senate committee and testify 
that it is okay for someone illegally in this country that is involved 
in identity theft to use fraudulently someone else's Social Security 
number as long as it is not for a bad purpose.
  If there has ever been a good reason to remove a department head, it 
certainly exists with the IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
  The article goes on and says that he made the statement in response 
to a question from Senator Dan Coats, a Republican from Indiana, during 
a session of the Senate Finance Committee about why the IRS appears to 
be collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent 
information. Senator Coats said that his staff had

[[Page 4370]]

discovered the practice after looking into agency procedures.
  This is Senator Coats being quoted: ``What we learned is that . . . 
the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and 
issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that's not 
really our job. We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the 
Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social 
Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a 
number is valid.''
  He is talking about the IRS.
  So if we are just talking about strictly the issue of competence and 
not even getting into lies, fraud, deception, violating court orders, 
violating congressional orders, violating his own department 
directives--if we are just talking about an issue of competence and the 
Internal Revenue Service utilizes Social Security numbers in order to 
determine whose tax return is being filed and processed and he has the 
unmitigated gall to say: Now, when the Social Security Administration 
that issues these numbers tells us that person is filing a tax return 
and the information that they have given the IRS is false, it is 
fraudulent, it is not their number, it is not their tax return, it is 
not their tax information, the head of the IRS, Mr. Koskinen, says: We 
don't trust the Social Security number--that is basically what he is 
saying--we don't trust the Social Security Administration on whether or 
not it is a valid Social Security number when they tell us it is 
clearly not a number that belongs to the person that is filing that 
return. We go by our own information.
  Now, how in the world could the Internal Revenue Service have more 
valid information about a taxpayer's Social Security number than the 
Social Security Administration that issued the number, maintains the 
number, and updates their records regarding who is using that number?
  Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe it is not incompetence. Maybe 
it is just so much unbridled arrogance that he honestly believes that 
nobody can be right except his department because he is the head of it.
  The article goes on: ``Asked to explain those practices, Koskinen 
replied, `What happens in these situations is someone is using a Social 
Security number to get a job, but they're filing their tax return with 
their [taxpayer identification number].' `What that means,' he said, 
`is that they are undocumented aliens . . . They're paying taxes. It is 
in everybody's interest to have them pay the taxes they owe.'
  ```As long as the information is being used only to fraudulently 
obtain jobs,' Koskinen said, `rather than to claim false tax returns, 
the agency has an interest in helping them. The question is whether the 
Social Security number they're using to get the job has been stolen. 
It's not the normal identity theft situation,' he said.
  ``The comments came in the broader context of a hearing on 
cybersecurity in the agency. About 464,000 illegally obtained Social 
Security numbers were targeted by hackers in a February cyber breach of 
the agency, while information on 330,000 taxpayers was stolen in an 
unrelated breach last year.''
  Koskinen ``added that the agency wanted to differentiate that `bad' 
misuse of personal data from other uses. `There are questions about 
whether there's a way we could simply advise people . . . A lot of the 
time those Social Security numbers are borrowed from friends and 
acquaintances and they know they've been used, other times they 
don't.'''
  So, apparently, people at the IRS, like Lois Lerner, don't mind 
violating the law, don't mind violating their oath, don't mind 
violating the very instructions for doing their jobs, and don't mind 
people--apparently, Koskinen doesn't--mind people that have violated 
the law to come into this country and have violated the law by 
possessing and using a stolen Social Security number without regard to 
whether they actually stole it themselves. No problem there as long as 
they are using it, apparently, to pay taxes.
  What he doesn't say is that what these returns normally do--from what 
I can glean, they are not using fraudulent Social Security numbers to 
say: IRS, we want to pay more taxes into the U.S. Treasury. So just 
look the other way while we use a fraudulent or a stolen identity, a 
stolen Social Security number. Just look the other way because we are 
going to send you some more money.
  Isn't that wonderful? What gratuity. What a wonderful spirit that 
someone would break our laws to come into this country, then steal 
somebody's Social Security number, and then be so gracious as to say: 
Now, I am filing my tax return because I want you to know I want to pay 
more taxes fraudulently in somebody else's name.
  That is normally not why somebody would file a tax return at the end 
of the year using a stolen Social Security number.
  No. Normally, you would file that to get money back from the 
government. You violated all kinds of laws. So why not violate one more 
to get a nice check back from the government?
  Is it too much of a stretch to think that perhaps, if somebody will 
violate the laws of the United States to come into the United States, 
they will refuse to comply--like millions of American immigrants have 
that, thank God, have wanted to come into America, have made America 
better, have come in and followed the law--no. These want to come in 
illegally and use stolen Social Security numbers.
  Again, is it too much to think, perhaps, if they are willing to 
perjure themselves using a stolen Social Security number, willing to 
file a fraudulent tax return that is not really theirs or the name or 
number on it is not theirs so that they are guilty of perjury, they are 
guilty of Internal Revenue fraud--is it too much to think they might 
just be willing to claim some exemptions and to claim some tax credits 
that they are not really owed so that they get a big old check back 
from the Federal Government?

                              {time}  1930

  I mean, why not ask for a big tax return, tax refund from your return 
after you have already violated so many laws of the United States? Yet 
the man whose oath of office should have had him rooting out stolen 
Social Security numbers and making sure taxpayers are not defrauding 
the U.S. Government, that they are not getting refunds back they are 
not owed, couldn't he go ahead and do that and protect Americans from 
identity theft? No, apparently not.
  So Americans aren't protected. Their information clearly has not been 
adequately protected with the Internal Revenue Service under Koskinen's 
control. So Americans are at risk, especially if they are law-abiding 
and want to keep their information protected, because we have a head of 
the IRS that thinks it is okay if you are illegally in the country and 
filing fraudulent tax returns and using stolen identities, it is okay 
if you are simply trying to file your tax return. But, of course, how 
many of them really are getting refunds? That is why they are filing 
the fraudulent return using a stolen Social Security number.
  Well, I know, having handled thousands of felony cases in Texas that 
came through my court and having noticed over the years that juries 
feel the same way, if you will lie repeatedly or break laws of moral 
turpitude repeatedly, isn't it just kind of fundamental that you might 
be willing to lie in order to get some money back? Juries thought so, 
repeatedly. I thought so in numerous cases.
  As we know from the rules of evidence--it should also apply to life, 
and it should apply to government investigations--that rule is 
credibility is always an issue. If somebody would use a stolen Social 
Security number or commit perjury in filing a tax return, provide 
fraudulent information, they might just be willing to put in a number, 
too, that is also fraudulent in order to get that big check from the 
United States taxpayers that actually worked and didn't steal anybody's 
Social Security number.
  Is it any wonder why the American people are so stirred up against 
what is perceived as an establishment involving both parties in 
Washington, D.C.,

[[Page 4371]]

when we have this kind of contempt for honesty and honor and following 
the law and for tax returns and tax refunds from a man that is head of 
the IRS that needs to be impeached and removed from office?
  I applaud my friends for making the case they did. They didn't touch 
on this particular area, but it really brings the gavel down. As 
litigants often said in front of me as a judge, ``I rest my case.'' Mr. 
Koskinen needs to go.
  Now, in talking about immigrants who have come in illegally, we have 
an article from CNS News, Terence Jeffrey, this month: ``Obama Claims 
Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, 
Disability.'' The article asked the question: ``Does the President of 
the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of 
individuals who are violating Federal law that he will not enforce that 
law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the 
future, and that he will take action that makes them eligible for 
Federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due 
to their unlawful status?''
  I recall sitting right back there on the aisle, my friend Joe Wilson 
was sitting right over in the middle of this section over here, and the 
President was standing at this second level here, because that is where 
non-Members of the House have to stand to address this body if they are 
invited, as he was. He made statements about how his bill would not 
provide health insurance or healthcare provisions for people that were 
illegally here for abortion. My friend Joe Wilson just erupted--such a 
righteous man, he couldn't contain himself--and yelled out, ``You 
lie.''
  Now, we have House rules--and I know every time I bring this up or 
talk about this House rule against my friends in the Parliamentarian's 
office, paying real close attention to make sure I don't violate the 
rule myself, well, they start listening very carefully. Well, they 
always listen carefully, but even more carefully.
  But in talking hypotheticals, if a President or someone speaking 
officially in this House to either the House or a joint session makes a 
statement--and I am talking hypothetically. I am not saying the 
President did because I know that would violate the rule. But 
hypothetically, if he made a statement that is a bald-faced lie and 
somebody points out that it is a lie and it turns out the person that 
said it is a lie is 100 percent right, it makes you wonder about the 
propriety of the rule if the rule says somebody is lying and somebody 
else points it out, and the one that points it out is at fault.
  We do get into some tricky issues when it comes to areas of 
impeachment because it is real hard to make a case for impeachment if 
you can't talk about somebody that is in a position of authority in the 
Federal Government having violated the law in order to justify the term 
of high crimes and misdemeanors. So it gets kind of delicate in here at 
times trying to figure these things out.
  But regardless of whether anybody thinks the President lied or told 
the truth, I am not getting into that because I don't want to violate 
the House rule while I am trying to make my point. But here in this 
room, the President said basically people who are illegally here, they 
are not going to get the health insurance and not going to pay for 
abortion.
  Well, we know not only is it paying for abortion, but this 
administration will actually go to court and come after the Little 
Sisters of the Poor, these precious nuns who committed their lives to 
helping people less fortunate, basically a vow of poverty. They don't 
live lavishly. Their lives, like Mother Teresa's, are intended to 
better other people's lives.
  And this administration decides it is not the people that are 
violating our laws of immigration that they are going to come after, it 
is not people that steal Social Security numbers to use them to get 
refunds fraudulently from the American taxpayers, they want to litigate 
with the Little Sisters of the Poor. They want to litigate with 
Christians devoted to helping others but who believe with deeply held 
religious beliefs like so many of our Founders had, like the Founders 
of Harvard and Yale had when they required students basically to take a 
pledge of allegiance that the most important aspect of life is living 
for Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. And you go back and look at 
those oaths.
  But not this administration. To them, it is more important to go 
after some precious, sacred, caring nuns who say: We will do anything, 
we will lay down our lives for others, but you can't ask us to take 
actions that will provide for abortions because we deeply religiously 
believe that violates our Biblically-based beliefs, so please.
  No. This administration will meet them at the Supreme Court and 
demand these nuns give up their religious convictions, give up what 
they have dedicated their lives to stand for. Why? Because to them an 
abortion is more important.
  As I am running out of time, I want to also call attention today to 
something that became very important to me, having visited Nigeria to 
visit with a couple of dozen or so moms of daughters who were kidnapped 
by Boko Haram, basically shedding my State Department protection so I 
could go 2 or 3 hours to meet with them because they wouldn't initially 
come into the city to do that, having prayed with them and their 
pastor, wept with them and a few girls that were able to escape.
  It was 2 years ago tonight that 276 schoolgirls were kidnapped by 
radical Islamists not because they were girls on this occasion. They do 
believe girls are inferior. They can't bring themselves to accept what 
we here know: we are equal in God's eyes. In some ways, ladies are 
superior, but not to Boko Haram, not to radical Islamists. They are 
basically property. The school was not attacked because they were 
girls. I asked that. No, they can't stand girls. They see them as 
property, something to be raped and traded into sex slavery. But the 
reason they attacked the school is because it is a Christian school.
  Having talked to leaders there, religious leaders, and learning that 
our administration not only has done nothing significant to help them 
get their girls back other than launch a campaign based on 
#bringbackourgirls, but we haven't given them the information they need 
to get the girls released. We don't have to send troops, put boots on 
the ground.

                              {time}  1945

  There are things we could do to help them; but according to the 
information we have gotten, this administration says: Well, if you want 
our help in getting these precious girls released, you are going to 
have to start to change your law and allow for gay marriage. Also, you 
are going to have to start paying for abortions.
  As a Catholic bishop in Nigeria said: Our religious beliefs are not 
for sale to President Obama or to anybody else.
  God bless him. God strengthen him.
  Our tribute goes to those families. We need to do more to help them. 
Two years ago today, that horrible thing occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________