fine. and it's important to the taxpayers, the taxpayers know which side you fall on. if there were an organization promoting taxpayer funding for abortions, wouldn't you want to know what they were using that political money for? or for what candidate they were backing? what about a group that wanted to promote voting without ids? a what if in the midst of a few years ago it was an increase of communist candidates in this country, a new time in his clubs want to be tax exempt? wouldn't you want to be sure that the self-declared tax reclassification of those groups was correct? the mistake year was that the staff organizing your organizations using names of the organizations rather than the work they do, and asked him proper questions to figure that out. it's clearly wrong. it was inept, stupid come at a whole lot of other things.

but let's not get lost, doing the bush administration liberal groups were targeted without any concern for mr. iso anyone else on this committee. the republicans were looking for a conspiracy whether -- where there is a win. mr. iso said he can feel it in his gut that someone has broken the law. just ask yourself which is more likely that a mid-level employees overwhelmed by four times as many applications as before made stupid the responsible shortcuts, or that there's an administration wide plot to take down community organizers. let's not forget this happened under an irs commissioner appointed by george bush and was investigated by a republican inspector general. what happened to you was unfair. it was unfair, and an incredibly inconvenient but it was a mistake. our job is to make sure it never happens again. i haven't heard a single word about what questions you think

we ought to be able to ask you about your tax exempt request. anything else like the circus that is happening in the oversight committee or here is simply political theater. it is diverting attention from what we ought to be doing on this committee is rewriting the law in this law. >> thank you. times expert. mr. ryan is recognized. >> i'm going to deviate from my original question in response to what i just heard. [applause] >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, welcome to washington. >> the committee will be in order. mr. ryan has the time. >> we heard gingrich, we heard bush -- >> mr. chairman? >> we have the former irs commissioner who knew long before congress -- they chose to apply for tax-exempt status. so you are to blame i guess is the message here.

do you think that you were targeted based upon your political beliefs? your religious beliefs? or just because you chose to apply? >> our belief, our views. >> we had the acting commissioner mildred a couple of weeks ago and we asked him, did groups with the word organizing or progressive in their name, where they targeted? the answer was no. we do know for, this one of the facts we now know, people were singled out because of their beliefs. back to my original line. mr. kookogey -- sorry. 29 months spent 29 months and counting. >> you haven't been approved yet? >> i've not been approved. >> one of your increase, 90 questions, asking you to provide a list of your members and donors, the political affiliation of your mentors and

your political position on virtually every issue important to you? >> yes, sir. >> you are teaching montesquieu, says rowe, augustine, de tocqueville, washington, and it's 29 months and waiting, right? >> yes, sir. >> mr. geesman, i just want to give -- mr. geesman, i just want to get this one nailed down. dr. eastman, excuse me. you have proof that the irs, an individual or group of individuals irs committed a felony county approved to this, and nothing has occurred to seek or find justice, is that correct? >> that's correct. the federal law requires that we be notified if there's an indictment brought. we have not been. federal law allows us to request information about whether, the status of the investigation whether it's been productive or unproductive, and any action taken. we were refused any answer to

that request as well. we have identified the possible -- came from with the irs. >> your donors are confidential but protected by law. you have proof that the irs leak your confidential government information to a group that opposes your point of view, and your donors were harassed as result of that, is that correct? >> yes. >> ms. martinek, right next door in iowa, i work with groups are similar to what you do in iowa. your board members, the irs told you that if you're bored signed a letter -- if you're bored signed a letter that said you'd no longer pick a protest on behalf of the pro-life movement at planned parenthood, and then they could receive a tactic of status code is that correct? >> that is correct specs the 71st amendment rights and then we might approve your application? >> that is correct but she said it was ready to go through,

everything was in order and as soon as they received that letter the application would go through. >> we have not heard any testimony that this is happening to groups that have the opposite views. so to suggest that these citizens are to blame for applying i do understand how you want to make that conclusion. i yield. >> thank you. mr. lewis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank each of you for being here. i notice the makeup of the panel is from the south and other parts of the country. i grew up in alabama, went to school in tennessee, and i live in georgia. but i'm happy to see people from other parts of the country. no organization or individual whether progressive or

conservative deserves the type of treatment that you received or expense. the targeting of groups on status based on a little view is completely unacceptable. it is a disservice to the american people. but let me be clear it is also a disservice to apply a partisan plan to issue which concerns all americans. since the days of the bush administration, with the political leanings -- groups with political aims has been scrutinized to every single person in this room knows this. we must be honest with ourselves and with each other. this has nothing to do with the red versus blue. in fact for the past 10 years all of the irs commissioners have been republican appointees appointed by president george bush. between 2004-26 -- 2006, many liberal groups included in the

lazy. no, a progressive church, an environmental group will be targeted by the bush administration. where was the outrage than? where was the sense of righteous indignation? as members of this committee, we must exercise our oversight role to honesty and fairness as american people expect and deserve. as we stated today, let us also remember that the irs has many good hard-working employees who do a great job enforcing the tax code. we must not let the action of misguided view cause the representation of the entire agency. if anything we must come together and find a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. again i want to thank each of you for taking their time, coming here, especially coming from alabama and, not too far

from montgomery where i grew up. and again, thank you for being here and thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. nunes is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kookogey, among the irs ages to demand an edge to me interested questions you received a letter from ms. lois lerner, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> ms. gerritson come you also receive letter from ms. lurie? >> yes, sir. >> and ms. kenney, you received a letter from lois lerner? no? >> in the materials i did, yes. >> anyone else received letters from lois lerner? okay. we have three witnesses are received letters from lois lerner. last week or two weeks ago mr. miller suggested that this was just confined to cincinnati but obviously we have

conflicting statements there between what mr. miller said and what actually happened, and i think we need to get to the bottom of that. mr. eastman, can you name the treasury inspector general for tax administration officials whom to discuss your case with? >> not off the top of my head but i can provide that after the hearing. >> if you could provide those after the hearing i would appreciate it. do you know the league, if the leak of your tax information, if it included your organization donors, did it come from washington, d.c. or cincinnati, or do you know? >> i don't of any reasonably that came from cincinnati. are finally office is out in utah and in the washington office is who we been dealing with. >> mr. chairman, i think we should try to figure out where, perhaps inspector general has that information which we speed up this process on this investigation. of where this information was leaked from because obviously that would dispel the cincinnati narrative that is out there.

ms. martinek, the irs agent who handled your case is ms. richards? >> that is correct. >> does ms. richards have a first in? >> she never gave a first name. >> okay. did you correspond with any of the irs agent about your gay? >> i did not, but our attorney sally did. >> okay but could you provide the names of those you correspond with to this committee? >> yes. >> did ms. richards ever indicate she was discussing your case or seeking guidance from anyone else in the irs? >> she did a couple times, put me on hold, and then she said i'm going to check with my supervisors. >> so you don't know the name of? >> she never gave me a name. >> within sensei or somewhere else? >> i don't know that. >> okay. ms. belsom, you were contacted

by mr. joseph or? >> yes. >> and did you correspond with any other agent about your case? >> no. >> just mr. herr? >> yes. >> did mr. herr ever indicate he was talking to someone else within the agency? >> i didn't speak to him on the phone so we just had the initial letter and then i contacted the aclj and they do with them. >> you to know the came from washington are sensitive? >> he is, the address he gave on the letter he sent that he signed it said the cincinnati. >> okay. mr. chairman, in light of today's testament i think that we should bring these, at least mr. herr, mr. seale, ms. richards who doesn't have a first name, we should try to figure out who those people are and bring them before they commit our lives conduct interviews with these folks but and also, i also remain concerned about ms. lerner who pleaded the fifth and has said

she didn't do anything wrong. we should probably try to get her before this committee. and also her colleague, mr. joseph grant, who was promoted just weeks before, and then resigned immediately. i think they could maybe shed some light on who violated the constitutional rights of these witnesses, and many rights of many americans. i will yield back. >> thank you. mr. neal is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. things are going to beijing to what we've heard today and what we've heard in previous hearings is certainly very troubling to t that rest touches every american and is critical of america to trust the irs not be intimidated or be afraid of the irs. these reports include today's testimony of targeting by the irs of organizations based on their political views, religion or opposition to the administration's policies is certainly unacceptable.

also troubled by the mismanagement the irs in handling tax exemption applications and the lack of oversight at the screening process. acting commissioner miller last week based on questions i offered highlight a case of what my constituents who follow the advice of the irs only to be penalized a few years later. americans serve should be able to rely on the advice of the irs without punishment. the inconsistencies information and thereby the irs to provide congress with information in its oversight roles certainly is unacceptable as well. it's unbelievable to me that while mr. lerner testified before this committee just a few days before her apology at the aba conference, without informing this committee as to what she was going to say at the aba conference. that demonstrate a lack of regard for our role. so i appreciate very much, mr. chairman, your hearing, calling

it today. we need to get to the bottom of these problems and work together to identify a solution that hope will be a bipartisan basis. but we can't forget something here that's even more egregious than some of the actions of the irs. and that's the underlying problems. 501(c)(4)s are engaged in political activity. after citizens united, the irs was flooded with applications from groups seeking 501(c)(4) status. why was that? in large part it's because super pacs must disclose their donors which 501(c)(4) do not. that's not meant as a political statement. both conservative and liberal groups have taken advantage of the lack of transparency of 501 (c)(4) status and is equally troubling in both cases. in reference to mr. ryan's statement earlier, there were democratic groups that were targeted. previous testimony indicated

that. that should be noted as well. so i hope, mr. chairman, that you're going to include a thorough review of title i (c)(4) status as we seek to address the issue. now, ms. kenney, just a question that appreciate very much more work with veterans. including the fact that there are a million 700,000 new veterans. that number is probably going to reach 2 million as you know. now, you did in your opening testimony indicate that you have an invitation you ask into a wide range of groups and candidates. but you also indicated that democrats did not attend based upon invitation that you extend the why do you think that would be? >> i have no idea. >> okay. that's the end of my question, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. mr. tiberi is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman for providing this hearing today at the outstanding witnesses, the testimony has been breathtaking. i would like to remind all the

members of the committee that this is far beyond 501(c)(4) status. mr. chairman, you may recall the gentleman that i introduced in the last hearing, justin bennett thomas, question number 26. and i would like to work with you to submit some information on that particular case, congresswoman schmidt with his congressman, and she submitted from suburban cincinnati to the irs questions regarding why mr. thomas was questioned 26 on a 501(c)(3) application for a suburban cincinnati organization. to this date have not received their status. and to this day this american doesn't know why he was questioned number 26. so i would like to work with you, mr. chairman, on trying to get answers to both of those organizations. i was shocked to find out on friday with a question from a

lawyer in my district on another matter dealing with the irs. this lawyer represents an organization that is a taxable nonprofit. a taxable nonprofit. they filed their first tax return with the irs in february of this year, mr. chairman. the organization's name is we the people convention inc. in ohio. they received a letter from the irs on april 30, and it says. taxpayer, unfair to 21st we receive your form 1120, the taxpayers shown above the we are sorry we cannot process your return as filed. our records indicate the above named account, we the people, is a political corporation, and thus as a political corporation more required to file another form and file for tax exempt

status. the irs had no information other than the name we the people for an organization that wanted to pay taxes. and their return was rejected in april of this year, mr. chairman to the lawyer wrote back to the irs, by the way, not a tax-exempt division, another division within the irs, input corrections operations within the irs, and a letter from the lawyer says this organization was formed as a nonprofit corporation in ohio in february 2011, stated purpose of the entity is the coming together of ohio citizens for the purpose of sharing knowledge, expense, ideas about the governance of our state as was for any lawful purpose. it is focused on planning and holding an annual meeting to discuss civic and social welfare's. the organization is not involved in any activity designed to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of any election this your position does not meet the

statutory test as an entity that can claim tax exempt status under irc section 527. and has not attended to claim such a status. mr. chairman, we are only scratching the surface of where this goes. not a tax-exempt organization. this organization is a taxable nonprofit. so for the members of this committee who think that this is about just tax-exempt status which by the way is illegal, this shows that we are only scratching the surface. mr. chairman, i appreciate your leadership on this. that testimony is fabulous. my mom and dad came to america, crossed the atlantic and i've got to chile, ladies and gentlemen, this is shocking to me. i yield back. >> mr. doggett. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony today at the last hearing that we had on this subject featured as the lead witness, the inspector general of the internal revenue service.

a career republican who has worked for two republican senators who was appointed by president george w. bush and who have broad investigative powers. he identified wrongdoing at the irs. i agree with his findings, agree that whether it is one of these organizations, any of the 298 applications that mr. levin identified from his report that was set aside. 96 of them at getting to be of perhaps of a political orientation like the groups that are here today. and perhaps one like progress texans in my hometown which received a similar letter. it had very dissimilar political beliefs from those expressed here today. whatever the political police, the inspector general is right. folks should never have to worry about whether the tax collector is looking at their political beliefs or activities in making a decision. the inspector general had more

to say, however, after the very strong opening statement of our chairman about what the report signified. i asked him specifically if he found any evidence of the corruption at the irs has charged. he said no, he had not. i asked since there was a charge of our hearing whether the tax system is rotten at the core, he indicated no, definitely not. i asked him whether there was any evidence to support from his thorough investigation the charge of the chairman that the irs picks who wins and who loses in america. he responded, i don't believe that is the case. i agree with him on those findings as well. indeed, there is the question and a serious problem at the irs with regard to the basic issue of which groups in our country,

the taxpayers should subsidize. we do not subsidize the democratic or the republican or the libertarian parties, and we should not. and we should not subsidize groups that act in a similar way to promote political activity. this congress was very clear on that point, clear on it in 1913, and then repeated re- convocations of what is now 501(c)(4). it is said that they must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. only at a later time through a regulation, through a rule that seems to conflict directly with the clear wording of the statute that the irs acts to give itself discretion since organizations just like those before us today. i think irs was wrong here. it did so during the administration of president

dwight eisenhower in 1959. and in more recent years, particularly after the decision and citizens united come suggested that we would have tens of billions, indeed hundreds of millions of tax subsidize money pouring in with secret undisclosed contributors into the election process to pollute our democracy, an organization before the last election, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, petition the irs to act about this, and to go back to the original clear unequivocal wording of the statute that had existed since 1913. the irs did not respond except with a, we will think about it, type letter. the citizens for responsibly and ethics in washington has petitioned again this year for the treasury department to act on this matter. i have asked them, as have other

members of this congress to do the same. i don't believe that the internal revenue service, the treasury department should be providing tax subsidies to organizations that are not engaged exclusively in social welfare, whether the name is progress taxes or 9/12 patriots, or any other self-styled name they may want to apply to themselves. this is the second hearing on this subject in a very short period of time. we've now had some 37 votes on whether to repeal the affordable health care act. i'm sure this is not the last hearing on this topic, and the two are closely related. the internal revenue service has an important function to play in carrying out the provisions of the affordable care act. it is to assess those working and middle-class families who are entitled to receive some

premium assistance in acquiring insurance. and the irs needs to carry out the job effectively and fully. the two are directly related to ensuring that the irs does not fulfill is a totally. i we'll back. >> i will will note for the record the inspector general report was in awe to come the inspector general indicated that he would be completing a full investigation of this matter in the future. so i would recognize -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the supreme court has already decided this issue and some of our friends may disagree with the supreme court's decision. and just like some of us on this side of the aisle might disagree with the supreme court's decision on forcing americans to buy health insurance. but it's the law of the land. so let's step back and see where we are. last week, two weeks ago we had

a hearing. mr. george and mr. miller appeared. mr. miller excepted the ig's report. he said he accepted it fully, but on the other hand, he said i don't agree with the use of the word targeted in the report, even though it was used 16 times. mr. miller would not even agree that certain organizations and/or individuals were treated differently in this process. he did, however, say, as the chairman said, we provided poor customer service, poor customer service. so i didn't have a lot of time to ask mr. miller additional questions, but, so as i'm can't figure out, was mr. miller asked to resign by the president of the united states because he provided poor customer service?

well, if mr. miller provided poor customer service and was asked to resign by the president, who else provided poor customer service that should be asked to resign? under mr. miller -- under ms. lerner, under the names that were brought up, that would be my question. rather, we know that it would be more poor customer service. because mr. miller goes on to say, well, it was just poor customer service, i want to apologize to get any came up with excuses, and then he said that coming in, there was really no intent here to treat anybody differently or wrongly. there was no, this was an effort by good employees to be efficient. to be efficient? by asking you hundreds of questions about your personal

lives? that's efficiency? i don't think so. and the word inadvertent was used as we talked about, dr. eastman's release of information, tax information. it's not inadvertent. and there is no -- there is more investigation do. i said many times in this forum, most people know that i'm a retired police officer, 33 years as a cop. there's a lot of questions to ask your. when i asked mr. miller who we spoke to about this to try to find out who came up with the criteria that all of you had to respond to, he didn't remember first but finally he gave me the title of the percy spoke to. .. -- person he spoke to. ..

ski doo do you have any other names of people you contacted, that you spoke with, that you received e-mails, can you provide those? i'll just start with -- say your name one more time -- could you please provide me with any names you can think of that you had communication with? >> yes. the first agent on my case was sheila may robertson. my case was switched to the desk of the mr. ron bell, and he was the one who was waiting on guidance from his superior at

his organization and other similar organizations. i was then passed to a mr. mitch stehle, and them the most recent letter, which came as recently as may 6 was from a woman from a name who i can't pronaps. >> we'll get if from you later. >> thank you. >> hear was the only one. >> we had a couple from the inspector general's name. i'll provide those. >> mitch steel. >> other names possibly? >> holly paws comes to mind. >> okay. >> i'll provide that. robert, chow i have an id number, ronald bell, steven lois lerner, and in the last page of the testimony is the time line and all these names are in there

as well as the id number. >> all right. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. thompson's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the witnesses for taking your time to be here. it's important that we figure all of this out. ms. kenny, i want to particularly thank you for your work with veterans, being one myself, i appreciate that very, very much. i want to just state for the record what i said the last time we had a hearing on this. i believe that it's outrageous, inappropriate, it's wrong, and we must do everything we can do to fix it to make sure it never happens again. ms. belsom, i probably went get it correct, but you said something along the lines of this needs to be investigated. those responsible need to be held accountable for any targeting of conservative groups. i agree, but i believe any

targeting of any group, anybody that does that, needs to be held accountable. >> you're absolutely right. >> it's important that we hear about these abuses; however, we know it's bad, it's wrong, and we all know it must never happen again. we know we need to fix it. mr. chairman, it's time we stipulate this is wrong, that it's abusive, and that it needs to be -- it never should have happened, and we need to know what we need to do to get it fixed. we need to make sure that it never happens to conservative groups. we need to make sure it never happens to liberal groups. we need to make sure it never happens to any group. the i golf golf -- ig's report says the cincinnati staff of the irs had questions about the law and how it was to be applied, and that they were not given adequate guidance nor supervision, even after they asked for it. that's bad management at its

best, it's bad management, and i think that the subsequent stories seen about the staff retreats that the irs has been taking, i think bolsters that fact, that there's huge bad management in that organization. the truth is, we share a little bit of that responsibility. we have oversight over that operation, and we need to be bearing down to figure out how it is. how in the world can you even do that stuff without somebody knowing about it, without somebody recognizing it. the idea that you just take your staff, and you go off someplace and make not even b-rated films, to try to build some sort of better staff arrangement? not one of us could do that in our office. this committee couldn't do that. why is this in a bureaucracy did do that? we have a responsibility in this

committee, and i think we ought to get to doing our work and make sure that we fix this problem. we don't need to hear anymore witnesses. we know it was bad. it's terrible what you and everybody else had to go through. it's terrible when any government entity doesn't do their job and puts taxpayers through the ringer. let's get it fixed, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> all right, thank you. i'll go two to one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all of you for being here today providing your testimony. mr. eastman, you -- how did you find out that your doe mar list was leakedded to the irs? >> it appeared on a website, our political principle opponent. >> somebody why nor organization happened to be looking at that? >> somebody called it to our attention. we saw that. we saw that there were the

redactions, and our computer forensic people unlayered the redacts, and it came from within the irs itself. >> thank you. i have on the screen there some documents side by side that were taken, i believe, from the huffington post, and could you explain what's going on there? >> sure. they are the schedule b forms attached to the 990 tax returns. like all nonprofits, we make public the 990 forms, but schedule b, a list of donors is as private as our individual tax returns. the redog is the document on the website at the human rights campaign. the document on the right is the same pdf file but with the redactions removed. there's the document number affixed by the computer, and at the top of the page, you see the language, you know, a live tax return from the internal ir certification system for

official use only. >> so this was the first time you were aware of this on the huffington post, and it was taken from your add adversary group's website? >> yes. the human rights campaign, which is our chief adversary posted it, the huffington post, and a number of other media outlets then linked to that illegally disclosed tax return. >> soot this point in time, you went on to determine what act, course of action the irs or department of treasury was going to take; is that correct? >> that's correct. we filed specific requests of information with the treasury and inspector general for tax administration, and because there's felony violations at issue here, we filed request of investigation with the department of justice criminal division as well. >> stone walled? >> well, the investigation, and i have the full list of the agents involved, and they wanted to close off the possibilities this was just leaked by somebody

internal to our own organization. i think the evidence and document speaks for itself. it's possible somebody might have asked for a copy of the tax return back and then went to the trouble of leaking it. they closed the door off, but once closed, that was the last we heard of everything in the investigation, and that was the summer of 2012, almost a year ago. >> that document, with that number on there, the irs number on there, indicates this came from the irs. >> the document, the ir certification own internal map newel says it's on every tax return automatically for any return that's lek e tronnicly filed with the irs, and it's not a document we have in our records because we, of course, filed the clean version, and once it's filed, that's the document placed on the irs document for internal official use only. >> and you've been not notifieded despite a four year request and other means of action. you've been not notified as to

what recourse or actions are are being taken as of this date in >> in fact, federal law requires that we be notified if anybody is in charge of the illegal disclosure of our returns. we have received no such notification. our specific request tied directly to what is authorized to be disclosed to the taxpayer who returns we legally disclose. the status of the investigation, the results of it, whether the investigation remains open or closed, whether our complaints were sub stanuated or not, this is the language from the regulations itself. we ask for that specific information, and we were told we could not have it because any result of their investigation was at self protected taxpayer information. >> thank you. i have to say ranking member levin avoided mentioning speculation in the opening statement, and i can say, and it's evident here, there's a abuse, intimidation, mismanagement, and this cannot

be tolerated, cannot be toller rated in our system of government. we have to get to the bottom of this and facts of what happened, and those responsible will be held to account under the full law. the other thing we have to do is we have to restore checks and balances in which provides the opportunity for congress to do legit mat oversights. i have to say, mr. eastman, this is egregious. we're going to get to the bottom of it, and the irs can no longer withhold this information. we'll get it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the question before us today is who decides who gets to participate in the public square? is it bureaucrats? is it the american people? i am heartenedded today, and i know there's an ominous feeling about what's going on, but i'm heartened by the camp of you six who came forward because you

know what you did? you kept faith in america. you kept faith. no matter how big the swells were or the storm clouds, no matter how overwhelming the feeling was, you were faithful. god bless you wering if faithful. we're in a country where we are trying to reach out now, and we're all in this together, and we're trying to say, look, this is a great country that we have. it is worth celebrating, worth defending, worth articulating founding values, an i'm deeply appreciative of your willingness to keep faith when it was overwhelming, but, look, history is filled with this story. it always works out well when those entrusted with responsibility, that is us, listen to the complaints of the public, sort out facts from

fiction, and then do our work. i'll ileana johnson tell you why. based on your faithfulness, this comes to a good end. an unrelated federal agency, the federal election commission intervened unfairly in a 1996 election for the united states senate in the state of illinois. friend of mine, former law partner, was the republican nominee. he was falsely accused of breaking federal law. the federal election commission sued him, the case dismissed. the federal election commission tried to ma manipulate him in paying an outrageous fine. the federal election commission kept losing and losing and losing, and finally, al says, i'd like to speak to the perp with authority in this case because surely if they understood the facts, they would dismiss this case. the person at the other end of the phone in charge of enforcement at the time said, we'll dismiss this case if you

pledge to never run for office again. the person at the other end of that phone was lois lerner. in the words of any son, steve, i'm just saying. [laughter] now, as we're listening, and we hear about the first amendment rights of yours that have been trampled, there's something particularly egregious, i think, about the first of our first freedoms, that is our freedom to worship, our freedom to avoid government compulsion relating to matters of faith. what you described is the long arm of the federal government coming in to you, coming into your organization, and essentially telling you we'll tell you what to think, we'll tell you how to pray, heaven

help us. help help us. this congress opens on a daily basis in prayer. moments ago, this opened in prayer. we have prayer groups that are honey combs throughout the capital praying for god's mercy on this country, praying for wisdom, fraying for strength, praying for clarity. we have a federal agency that comes in and tries to get into your business? it's an outrage. so what you are sensing today from those of us on the committee is a sense of real clarity about what's going on. it's not about ambiguity in the law. it's not about any such thing. it's about abuse of power. what you have done, and i thank you for doing this. what you have dope is you have lit a lamp, and you have clanged a bell, and you have rallied people around you to make this right. i know, i speak for many on this

committee. we e will get this right. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. bloomenhower is recognized. >> thank you much pleasure, i appreciate the witnesses coming today to tell their stories. i think we are all united in denouncing the treatment you were courted and disclosing confidential tax information, and i'm look, -- looking forward to the committee moving forward as everyone expressed to get to the bottom of it. i appreciate our colleague, mr. thompson talking about the committee doing its job, figuring out what we do going forward, but part of what is coming clear to me is there's a fundamental flaw in the way that we allowed a clear statute to be modified by a regulation that

invites abuse. it puts bureaucrats in a position where they can legitimately probe around the questions. i think that's inappropriate. part of the problem that i see is illustrated by part of dr. eastman's testimony where he talks about his chief adversary in the political struggles, the human rights campaign. that doesn't sound, at least in my mind when we're dealing primarily with the engagement and promoting the common good and general welfare, that we talk about political add adversaries. the national organization for marriage established in 2007 to pass a proposition in california to stop gay and lesbian citizens

that they love, promoting social welfare. internal national organization of marriage documents last year, state of the organization seeks, quote, to drive a wedge between gays and blacks by promoting, quote, african-american spokes people for marriage, thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into, quote, denouncing these same-sex couples as big gots, close quote, and, quote, create a dominant anglo culture, and, quote, a key badge of la tee know identity, close quote, and none of this is denied by the national association organization for marriage. it's called for portraying president obama, quote, a social radical and seeking to cast same-sex marriage in a negative lights connecting to issues like

pornography. social welfare, i think not. it's everybody's right to participate in politics. while you should, but i think having organizations parading as being social welfare organizations, and then being involved in the political combat harkens back to why the statutes a hundred years ago said that they were prohitted, why whole heartedly agree with my colleague saying we taught to stop this regulation interpretation from 1959 that invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep it secret and to engage in political activity and some of it, i think, not necessarily promoting this social welfare of our country. everybody ought to play by the same rules. we ought to go back to the original intent. we ought to eliminate

opportunities for bureaucrats in the internal revenue service making these judgments about whether it's primarily social welfare or not. it shouldn't be involved with politics at all. until, i think, we do our job as a committee to reinstate that original intent that we overrule that regulation, we won't be doing our job completely. root out the problem, find out who link leaked confidential information, make sure this add ministered properly down in the ranks of the irs, but let's stop this charade pretending they are social welfare organizations and admit they are political, treat them as such, and play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays for when we're involved in politics. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you.

dr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank you very much for continuing this evaluation of what's described in the hearing today as chilling, shocking, tearful, felt betrayed, unconscionable, unbelievable, frightening, intimidating, using the government as a weapon ens -- against its citizens. you know, sometimes when we walk out of the capitol in the evening, we have significant emotion about something that's just occurred during that course of that day. i'm going to walk out today saddened. ed saddened that we find ourselves in a situation where our government is inactivity with its citizens that results in those adjectives and descriptions.

i echo the sentimentses, thank you, thank you, thank you, for your trust and faith in our government and system. it's that trust that's been eroded, though. our system of government only works if that trust exists, and our job is to restore that trust. your involvement today and participation over the past number of years will help restore that trust. a way to do that, by the way, is to institute fundmental tax reform. have an irs that is not powerful. how about an irs that just processes a form? how about an irs that says you've identified what you make, you've identified what kind of

exemptions may exist, and this is what you owe, and maybe it's that simple. maybe it's that simple. dr. eastman, i've -- i'm stunned at the -- >> as i am. >> at the magnitude of the disclosure you bring before us today, and i'm sorry that i was not aware of it, the significance of it before today, but i -- and people have asked you very, very specific questions and to inform the american people and inform the committee. i want to ask you about your donors. your donors being listed publicly. you mentioned that they were harassed. put flesh on that. what's that mean? how have the donors been harassed? >> i can begin with the story of proposition 8 in california, and before i get to that, i really have to respond to the things said on the other side. representative, it's your kind of statement that have empowered

irs agents to make determinations about which organizations -- [applause] qualify for the public good and which do not. [applause] the notion that the defending traditional marriage doesn't qualify as a defense to the public good is beyond pore postrows, and how sad it is, representative, that efforts to educate about our constitution have become a partisan political issue that you think people ought not to get tax exempt status for that. back now to the question. beginning in proposition 8, people's names were disclosed as donors, businesses boycotted, and if an employee had a business, that business was boycottedded. they were harassed, assaulted on the streets, vandalized in their property. this pervaded across the nation. every time our donor lists is disclosed to the point donors say they are fearful of giving money to you, to help support the cause we believe in because our businesses and families are

at risk. it's the very reason i pointed out with mr. lewis that naacp versus alabama held the right to keep people's names and identities confidential when the risk of intimidation rises to the level it has. >> dr. eastman, i appreciate if you would provide for the committee some of the specifics regarding that. it's absolutely chilling. a couple other quick questions that i think we can squeeze in before the end. when did you receive the question about your prayer gathers? >> in 2009. >> in 2009. ms. belsom, we're told the irs ended their interrogations in mid-2012, but that's not your experience, is it? >> talking to me? >> yes. >> yeah, we turned in everything on march 5th, 2013, and we heard nothing since then. >> 20 # 13. i make the point because the inspector general said that the challenges occurred between

march 2010 and ended in mid-2012. clearly, that's not the case. >> thank you. >> thank you, and i thank all the witnesses, and ai applaud your leadership in terms of effort. there's a different background, in business 30 years, came here in 2007. one thing i tried to do is when i got here, the sense was nobody was listening in washington. i, as much as anybody here, i do it in a lot of town halls and meetings, and i started in 2007. i'll tell you one thing with a lot of conservative groups, and i went to tea party groups, and many of the groups didn't want politicians there. the bottom line was they were scared to death and what was going on in the country. i heard the conversations in terms of the debt, the deficit, the stimulus, the t.a.r.p.. they felt, and i felt they were going broke as a country.

that's why i applaud what you are doing here today, your leadership from that stand point because my mind, it's real. the yeah -- year i came in, we had a deficit, and that deficit went up to 1 #.3 trillion for four years. i'll tell you that brought a lot of the energy, different issues, but at the conservative groups, they can do the math. when you go from 8 trillion to 16 trillion quickly to 20 trillion, and i heard a lot about that, and i, obviously, as a business guy, know in terns of balancing budget, 49 out of 50 governors do it, people are concerned, not just about themselves, but more importantly, they were concerned about their children and grandchildren base i represent the state of florida, and people have done well in the district, and they were concerned about the next two generations. now, that said, the question is, there's no question that you

were targeted, humiliated to some extent, but how did that impede your growth to your organization recognizing full potential? i want to start out, you mentioned it affected one aspect from jr. stand point, your organization in terms of a donor that could have contributed, but you couldn't get paper work in time. what impact did it have, all of you, in terms of realizing your full potential's organization. comment on that, please. >> sure. as you noted, we were promised the 30,000 grant pop achieving status. because the status took so long, we have to move that off the books, and when you get status, reapply. the organization also added that it was unbelievable in his mind in 25 years being executive direct director of grant b

money, he never saw this. he never saw any nonprofit he dealt with not get through in two or three months. as to the impact, i'm a c-3, it's about establishing trust. it's one credible foundation to put money in the o. i use that, then, to go to other organizations and say, this organization trusted my organization, will you now contribute? because i could not get status, it stopped. since may 2011, i'm dore -- dormant out of fear i had a target on my back. >> ms. belsom, what impact did it keep you or your organization from full potential? >> yeah, a couple comments. there's misconceptions about what a c4 organization as far as

drk i'm outraged by the accusation that we are sub sigh die r -- subsidized to the taxpayers. it's not a tax deductible amount. we don't get money from the taxpayers. what we are saying is, hey, if we have a group and people today dues or make a donation that at the end of the year or whatever we're not subject to pay taxes again, which is always tax when the person earned it to begin it. w's an outrage. we are not taking money from starving children to fund the groups. you know, that being the case, i can't say the investigation ongoing for the past three years impeded us because they have donated as see fit, and we operated as if we were are c4 because it's impending. >> mr. eastman, do you have -- >> i'll put it in context.

in the proposition 8 fight in california, the opposing side raised equivalent the same amount of money, and the intimidation campaign brought, highlighted on the disclosure of our donors to c-4, the last round of ballot initiatives, the protraditional marriage side out spent by four to five to one. the chilling effect coming from the intimidation of donors to the cause of traditional marriage is pervasive and having real consequences on the outcomes of elections on that key policy issue that is before the american people. >> all right, time expired. mr. kind is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i, too, want to thank the witnesses for the testimony here today. we do appreciate it. we got a problem on our hand, and hopefully, this committee will be able to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to fix it, and fix it sonses possible. if there's any true rot at the core of our democracy, it's pervasive feeling that you're being treated unfairly.

i'm a form earn athlete, i was not the fan of referees on the field, but they played an important role in the game. you don't always agree with the call, but they are essential part, and i would hope that the answer is as simple as reforming a tax code that's apt kuwaited and too complex, a processing unite and nothing else. even president reagan believed in trust would verify. be honest. if we were all angels, we wouldn't have 5 need for government in our lives, but we do need verification. there are some terminology here, and it's important role for the congress and committee to help clarify as we move forward to ensure this never happens again. they are engaged in social welfare, and that's what the irs struggles with because the irs

was clear found based on interviews and preliminary investigation that took place, there was no partisan or political motivation behind what was going on. now, there are reports that there were progressive groups singled out as well. we were hoping to call a witness on our side to be a part of the panel and ask them to testify, and we could have called someone from progress taxes, chicago news cooperative, clean election texas, or in addition call emerge america and its affiliates with their tax exempt applications denied or revoked. in fact, the recent tax notings article looked through the 176irs approved advocate sigh organizations approved through may of 2013. they took a look at those approved, 122 of them were conservative organizations, 48 nonconservative organizations, and the six didn't have sufficient information to determine between the two. you have cause and complaint

today, and it's our obligation to do a better job of working with an irs who i also happen to believe is over burdened with the deluge of tax exemption applications over the last couple years, and the cincinnati office is small of nine people processing all applications, and the criteria was wrong, the way it was used the way it was. there's question of insufficient resources and staff to deal with the deluge that did come in. now, you have to qualify as a 501c4 organization. is that appropriate? >> i think the question is hypothetical. i only speak from my own experience.

>> it's not hypothetical with the irs. it's a determination they have to make. >> but you're asking me. >> right. >> let me ask you as a witness here today, do you, in your mind, have a clear definition of what is engagement in social welfare or engagement in political activity. do you have a clear definition in your mind? >> i can only answer from my own experience because i'm not a lawyer. my experience is we were obeying the law and our personal group is about education. >> i believe you believe that in all your heart. ms. belsom, the same question. do you have a clear definition in what is social welfare activity? >> glad to answer that. you know, i did a google search of other 501c4 organizations, and there were groups such as america votes, brady campaign, california league of conservation voters, citizens

for tax justice, democratic leadership council, environment california, gender rights maryland, georgia right to life, health care for american now, national transgender -- >> do you have a clear definition in your mind of what constitutes political activity or social welfare activity? >> can you define "political" for me? >> i'm not doing this to single you out or criticize -- >> yeah, i know. >> it highlights the point i'm making is that the definition is very subjective, and when you have a subjective definition and asking a federal agency to apply their judgment, you're going to get subjected judgments from if. that's why -- >> can i -- >> mr. chairman, we need rules of the activities of what's allowedded and what is not allowed, and when you don't have that, you have instances like this on both sides of groups being singled out for additional questions and scrutiny, and then the feeling of unfairness sets in. >> time expired. >> that's what we are wrestling

here. >>ment minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness affected by taxpayer activity, by irs activity. that's why there's no minority witness at the table today. >> thank you. >> you were given that opportunity. i want to make sure the gentleman understood that. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you to the witnesses. the american people are led to believe you are muscles of political strength subsidized by taxpayers and have some unfair advantage over those who share a different belief than you. for the record, perhaps these tea party groups might share ms. belsom, ms. kenny, could yowl tell us riewfly what your annual budget is? >> sure. let's see. in 2010, our budget was 2453 --

>> $2453 for the entire year? >> yes. >> okay. >> 2011, it was $3371. >> 50% increase. >> and in 2012, we did have a grant from tea party patriots to promote our organization, so we had approximately $9,000 that year. >> wow, 9,000. okay. ms. kenny? >> forgive me for laughing. our budget is in the negative. >> uh-oh. are you a democratic organization? [laughter] the first year, we had a minus $1300. the second year, i don't remember. those were from legal fees to actually begin the process of filing for a 501 # c4 and other types of activities. >> basically, the harassment and illegal questions that you were

asked caused your organization to deficit spend to try to defend its constitutional right in equal protection under the law? >> yes. because it also dried up our ability to have people participate in a structure where they could doe enates. >> thank you. how about your budget? >> well, i don't have the exact numbers, but i can tell you we have less than $5,000 at the end of each month, roughly. one year, when we took a bus trip to washington, we had $18,000 at one time in the bank, but as soon as we paid off the bus bus, that went down. we were usually under $5,000. >> never over 50,000? >> oh, goodness, no. >> you understand the outrage by members of this committee for the apeerpt double standard that members on this committee seem to have for their frustration, outrage, opposition to groups who seek 501c4 and 501c3 status,

who may be on the opposite side of your issues and who we know have organized and raised far more sums than all of you collectively. one group, in particular we know about, is organizing for action. a group organized by the president's own men, political advisers, which to date we know has raised in excess of millions of dollars, and i'm just going to read on their website what they say their mission is. organizing for action is a nonprofit organization established to support president obama in achieving acumen of his national agenda. now, i would humbly ask colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that political? why would an organization -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> organizing for action -- >> would the gentleman yield?

>> no, i will not. >> why did you ask the question then? >> you have the time. >> go ahead. >> are the names disclosed? >> what names? >> the names of the president's committee? are the contributes disclosed? >> i'm not aware. >> i'll be on record saying the names should be disclosed. >> okay. we're not having a debate about whether or not we agree with citizens united. we're not having a debate about whether or not we want to change 501c3 or change 501c4 processes. i would submit to you if that's the goal, perhaps introduce legislation to do so. the problem is that this irs agency has discriminated against people based on their political views. [applause] and for anyone -- >> order. >> for anyone to defend -- >> resume order. >> from -- >> will the gentleman -- >> i have to ask the guests and committee to refrain from applause and displays of emotion

or attention. we need to keep decorum in the committee. i respectfully ask that our members reframe from clapping and cheering. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you may proceed. >> for anyone to suggest that these individuals' rights should be limited more than others simply because of their political beliefs is nothing more than discrimination. there would be clarify if there was an issue of white versus black, of jews versus christians, but because it's conservative versus liberal, there seems to be some question, some cloud, some lack of clarity, and rather than work united in a bipartisan way to root out the very cancer that my colleague, mr. rangel describes, we are simply trying to chop off the head of the patient, remove acting commissioner, and say all is well. we have to get to the bottom of this, identify the cancer, and

this has to be removed by the organization. i yield back. >> mr. paulson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, also, for holing the hearing, and, i just really thank you all taking the time to testify. it's a tragedy you have to be here today. i commend you for being here today. you shouldn't have to be here. no citizen should have to be here defending their constitutional rights, and you shared stories how your rights have been violated. you are brave. you are brave for being here listening to the emotion in your testimony is real not just testifying, but in the back of your mind, you can't help be but angry or fearful about sticking your neck out more and being a target, having a larger target on your back, potentially. this is not a mistake by the irs as some mentioned today. this is not poor customer service as the acting commission miller testified a few weeks ago. this abuse was sus temperaturic.

it's been going on for years. it's systemic because of the number of groups targeted. it's systemic because of the number of individuals that are in irs workers named as a part of your testimony that we will also be able to further interview and get information from, and the larger question now is who helped direct this activity? and lois lerner is refusing to answer questions. if i could just ask a question because you testified that back in december of 2011, you made numerous and repeated calls to the irs which were unreturned, and you timely reached an agent, ron bell -- >> yes. >> -- inquiring about why it took so long, and he was waiting on guidance from his superiors. comment, i mean, what, who do

you think the superiors would have been? someone down the hall is the feeling you got. >> yes, although he didn't indicate where it was. if the irs calls are records, we could find out if he specified at least when i remember. i think the conversation with mr. bell may be recorded, but what i remember him saying was we were waiting on guidance from the superiors for your organization and similar organizations. whether it was washington or another office, waiting a long time, not just putting me on hold and going to talk to someone else. >> i believe you also had comments about conversations with irs workers working with some of their superiors as well. >> that is correct. ms. richards did tell me on at least two occasions that she would have to put me op hold, and she would check with her

superiors to answer the question that i was asking her. >> well, your testimony is going to help outs get down to the facts so we can actually figure out who was directing this. in march 2010, apparently when the targeting actually started and went forward, but we were told, by the acting commissioner miller, that all that targeting activity stopped in june of 2012. have you continued to receive any correspondence from the irs regarding the status of your application? >> no. >> since june 2012? >> oh, thank you. >> yeah, i mean, i didn't get the letter. i mean, i heard nothing basically until september of 2012 was when we got the letter with the whole list of questions, so -- >> after june of 2012, you continued to receive information

-- >> right. >> -- from the irs regarding the status? >> right. >> well, mr. chairman, the other issue we'll have questions about is the whole concept of donors because we scratched the surface, and i think dr. eastman testified, but i had a conversation with the donor in my state who has been a contribute or to certain political causes and fearful of stepping out and voicing his concern about some of these activities, but now he's being emboldened, and i'll think we'll hear from more as the investigation continues, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. levin, it's critical the committee continue with the investigation into what we all agree. let's make that clear. there are those on the panel here, aapartmently, not the panel, excuse me, thank you, panelists, but on our side of the room that have tried -- some tried to divide us into those folks don't really want to clean

up the irs like we folks do. that's a typical propaganda game, and i understand it. i want to stress your attempt at bipartisanship, mr. chairman. i think democrats and republicans recognize the irs flags applications is wrong. we have to find out what happened and to fix it. if we're the problem. if we had not applied what the tests should be for these organizations, not us the organizations, it's we at fault. we have to change if that organization qualifies. we don't need political motivated irresponsible accusations against one another. look at where the facts are. no one has a god given right to

a tax exempt status. nobody, none of the panelists said that they did, more contrary to that. the laws, government tax exempt organizations, and 501c4s created by congress. it's us. if we're derelict, we have to change what the laws are, period. for us not to change the law, means this could happen with the facility down the road. all kinds of issues and all kinds of groups advocating those issues. i think we need to focus on writing clear rules, and should it be a test state on how much money you spend, should it be time based. after this, we can't afford not to be specific. i got some questions for the witnesses.

mr. eastman, chairman of the national organization for marriage, i believe; correct, sir? >> yes. >> why did your organization not choose to become, and you don't have to answer this, but i'm curious. why did you choose not to become a 527 organization? >> because that's not what we do under our organization. when we get particularly involved in political campaigns or supporting cause, we set up committees as required by the law and pursue that route. when we are pursuing purely educational functions, we use that through the office educational foundation, a 501c3, and for the activities that the tax code sets out as compliant with 501c4, we operate those activities under the 501c4 organization. >> you and i both realize if you're a 527, declare that. you apply for that. that means that your donors have to be what? >> as is a political action committee, and we do disclose

donors. they engage in themself, we follow the same rules. >> the organization -- >> the particular one did, that's right. >> that organization has, like, all other organizations in that particular category has a test to go through. in other words, when you make an application, you have to comply to stupid questions, we both agree to that, but in the final analysis, it's information given to the irs to determine whether you are eligible for exemption; is that correct, sir? >> yes. >> now, some of the questions are going to bear -- go to the thin line talked about before. that is what is political and what is not political? that's a tough question, suspect it? many times. >> well, the law often times is

clearer, and there is no cop tension that has ever been made that our activities under the 501c4 are not appropriate for 501c4. we have our status -- >> you're an organization, you have every right to profess what you believe in. >> that's right. and to have confidential protected as law provides. >> isn't there a question when it gets down to it, we reach so far, when you're going to express that issue in what you believe in, and doing something overtly to demonstrate where you feel yao right and where the other organization, whatever it may be, is wrong. doesn't it get to be a question of is this political or not? i mean, your politics is different than my politics and what is political to you may not be political to me. it's a tough question. >> answer briefly. >> i don't think it's tough at all that when we engage in the

same activity that the human rights campaign engages in, that our donors are disclosed, and there theirs is not. it's a felony, nothing occurred against them. >> mr. east man, no one inferred -- >> time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to say i have a letter today i want to put in the record from the northeast party, their treasure is a gentleman who's been a cpa for 40 years, and his primary practice was helping tax exempt organizations receive their 5013 or 4. >> okay, without objection. >> he states in his testimony, which i have here, that he was subjected exactly to the same

scrutiny that ms. belsom was, ms. gerritson, and ms. kenny. after 15 moints, he received a questionnaire with 110 questions in it. he states that unequivocally this was the most complicated questionnaire he's ever received in response, and quickly ascertained that this organization was being targeted specifically because of their beliefs. they were asked questions about the true the vote. they were asked questions about their affiliation with training sessions. they were asked for lists of names. all of you have received very, very similar questions. it is happening to all of us in our all districts. a year ago, about this time, i wrote a letter to the acting commissioner asking if this was actually going on, and mr.-- he

wrote a letter back saying it was not, and mr. joseph grant wrote a letter back saying it was not going on. just as recently as a few weeks ago, we questioned the acting commissioner, and still said that this was not going on. when we finally pinned him down on the questions, he basically said, well, we -- it actually was going on, but you didn't ask the question the right way. >> uh-huh. >> and basically, they had lawyered # -- lawyered up. since then, i'd like to walk you through a little bit of what happened. what happened as a result of the fact that across the nation, each one of you and each one of the groups and all of the districts have contacted their congressman, and this committee has began to, a year ago, to act on this, on this suspicion, and

what this committee has been subjected to is really a conspiracy of arrogance. when this committee swears in witnesses, we expect them to tell the truth. when you write a letter to the irs commissioner, and he writes you a letter back and says it's not happening, you have to operate on some premise of truth. >> uh-huh. >> we have been -- this committee has been subjected to untrue statements. they've been put in writing. commissioner schulman retired and resigned. acting commissioner miller, fired, then retired or resigned. joseph grant resigned.

lois lerner passed on, she's taken the fifth amendment, now op administration leave, and just yesterday newly named commissioner, not yet confirmed, his most common answer to the committee yesterday was he did not know. he was not aware. he would have to get back to us. now, this committee's heard a lot of that, especially from ms. lerner in the last year. the question i'd like to ask to each of you is what do you think the irs commissioner should do once this committee, exposing everyone in the irs that orchestratedded this policy. mr. k? >> i think it's conjecture. i don't think it's appropriate for me to determine what the irs commissioner should do. i can only speak for what i

would like to see done with regard to the whole matter to get to the truth, and if there is criminal activity that we have the miranda rule courage to pursue is and not politicize it and said, okay, we apologize. we, as taxpayers, if we fail to pay taxes, we get criminal penalties, it's not acceptable for the irs to say, oh, i'm sorry. >> i feel like -- >> i'm going to have to ask everyone to answer briefly. we're out of time. >> okay. i'd like to see a huge transformation of the whole way taxes are done, and as far as, you know, i feel like as a -- just a person concerned in my community, if i wanted to start an organization and work to educate citizens and have cap dates in to speak and that candidates, that sort of thing, i shouldn't need to have to worry about paying any taxes on money collected from dues. we're not funding any political candidates, and i just think -- i don't want to be involved with the irk rs. the irs is a nightmare, and i

would like something done to reduce the average citizen's aggravation in having to deal with the irs. we have to get rid of the tax system that we have and go to something simpler like a fair tax. >> briefly. in addition to the felony charges, we have to hold individuals responsible and civil little to the taxpayers whose disclosures done to pursue even if the department of justice won't. >> the answer is the rule of law must be followed, and if it is violated, it must be remedied either civilly or criminally or both. thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> the irs needs to uniformly process their applications without opting any of the first amendments rights. >> all right. >> i'll make it easy dittoing what was said, but just firing a few people will not fix the problem, just like mr. rangel said, it's a cairns inside the

agency, and it's got to be rooted out from the bottom. >> all right, thank you. ms. black is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank all of you for being here today. thank you for represent tennessee, but we have other groups here like the chat -- chattanooga tea party and others with/testimony. i appreciate y'all being here today. i think prior to exposure of what happened in the irs, if we ask the american people about their impression of the irs, i think we'd hear the words "fear," "powerlessness," "intimidation," and "mistrust," these are words used prierd that, but this is now confirmed. this is a sad day for the country where our founding fathers set up the bill of rights to ensure us that we wouldn't have a government that would intimidate the very st'ses -- citizens of the country.

it's a really, really sad sometime we've come to this point where we actually op foirm -- confirmed what people said prior to this. .. >> al, not -- it is stunning. it is unbelievable. i can't forgive an answer. a heaven and thinking about it for 21 months why they would want to know the names of seventh graders thought i am teaching western civilization,

political philosophy, the basic theories of economics, why in the world with the irs wants to know the names of these students but perhaps intimidation of them and their parents to discourage them being tossed under my to. . >> very chilling, something we wouldn't expect in the united states, we would be looking at some communist countries if we were to think of this kind of activity. one of my colleagues said that none of you were silenced. what i would like to know, maybe we can start over here you -- with you, miss gerritson. did you feel what was occurring in the intimidation and the status, did it silence you? >> i am here so no, it didn't. >> being able to do with your group -- >> i do have members that of come up to me and are fearful. they don't want to write their name on any sign of form we may have.

i also have people e-mail me that they are getting audited for the first time ever and they gave during the campaign. i can't put a number on how it has hindered our organization but it has because people have told me. >> we have not been silenced but if we didn't have a sensibility to attorneys, we may have been. >> you had some folks to help you out. >> i would agree. had we not had the acl day, we could not have fought to. >> we are not silenced, but there is a fist and a hand over our mouth because our educational opportunities to everything from creating pamphlets on the constitution to buying such things as bookmark to educate people about the constitution, that has been limited, the postcards on

getting voter information, that has been constricted. because we simply don't have the funds. >> my nature is not to be silenced but the number one comment i get when i do something like this is thank you for standing up for us, you must be very brave. i don't think it is brave, is citizenship, duty that we stand at every chance we get. >> if we don't speak out now that time may be lost. without the aclj and knowledge of other groups being targeted i am not sure what would have happened. there was a time i was ready to say forget this whole thing and it is very chilling and time is running out. >> i know it will come really quickly, your first amendment rights are being violated here. you want to -- >> whether or not it is chilling

was evidence today. some of the democrats on this committee implied that what was social welfare to them is social welfare but what might be social welfare to us is negotiable. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. young is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since the issue of groups being targeted by the irs has come to light i encourage everyone ice because to to let the facts lead us to wherever is they made. we don't want to draw premature conclusions. follow the facts. the more facts we learn including in this hearing the more concerned i get that very some organized effort to stifle conservative political activity. given the pattern of intimidation and obstruction we have seen i understand why some are ready to jump to firm conclusions but perhaps what is

most frustrating to me is we still need so many answers, answers we are not getting from some of the higher ups and others that represent us in the federal government. while we wait for those answers, far too many members of congress and polemicist masquerading as journalists suddenly downplay the gravity of this situation. we hear that time and again. then they draw conclusions of their own. these are conclusions incidentally that don't seem to jive with the fact that we already know. we heard for instance that the real problem is groups applying for tax-exempt status that engage in political activities. the problem is the grooves. groups of every political persuasion do this, they apply for tax-exempt status so why is it every tea party group that applied for 501 c 4 status with targeted? why approval of subsequently take years longer than many of their progress a cat of parts --

skelter apart? i want to know. why where pro-life groups and groups in support of traditional marriage targeted but not pro-abortion and marriage equality groups treated similarly? it has been more than suggested in this hearing that this is really about citizens united and about 501 c 4 groups and their undisclosed donors. i think some of my colleagues helped disabuse us of that notion but i want to know why were group's filing for 5013 c status like some of those here today, asked inappropriate questions like the content of their prayers. why for 501 c 3 applicants left in limbo if this is about the abuse of 501 c 4 status? lastly we heard this is about organizations trying to gain the system? if it is about organizations why was the irs so concerned about

individual donors to these organizations? why in the months prior to a major federal election the donor information for conservative groups and candidates gets illegally released by the irs? we want to know the answer to that question. why did donors get targeted with threatening communications trying to suppress their political donations? all of this is extremely troubling and we need more answers. said the those who could tell us limbos would rather plead the fifth amendment than help us get to the bottom of these things. this must never ever happen again. we need to ensure safeguards are in place as others on both sides of the aisle have said, so that our executive branch cannot nurture or give license to a culture or a subculture of intimidation within our federal agency. finally we need to punish those

who violated our trust. i am looking forward to that day when we do prosecute those who are responsible for acts that may well need to be prosecuted as more facts come in. you indicate you already have those facts on hand. let's hope those facts are presented before a court of law and proper action is taken. we have an indiana tea party group that wait a number of years for their 501 c 4 application to be approved. they decided not to answer the irs adds inappropriate questions. they finally received a denial of their 501 c 4 status. a few days later after being denied they were approved. curious behavior. i want to know if any of your groups had a similar situation where you were approved just days after being denied. >> no, i am still waiting for

status after 29 months. >> still waiting after all those three years. >> we were approved prior to 2008. >> i withdrew my application. >> we were approved one week after the request for a matter was given to us. once our attorney sent in her letter it was one week after that the we were approved. they didn't actually deny it but reacted very quickly once we had legal help pointing out the requests being illegal. >> it was 600 some days that we were finally approved. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. kelly is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for being here. a similar situation, i was an automobile dealer, my dad started a business sector coming back from the war, a one car show on a for service based.

imagine my shock in 2009 when all of a sudden one of my franchises was being taken away not because they didn't know how to run it or didn't meet the metrics it requires because the government made a decision, you are no longer going to be in business so i went through a process and got the dealership back but there's something wrong here. there is something wrong. this is truly a david vs. goliath. i think it is adamant burke who said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. i thank you for coming here today and i hope by appearing here today you encourage the other people throughout the country to come forward. you do not have to be afraid of this government. the fear only exists if you allow it to continue. don't let that happen to you. i traveled to the district last week, can't tell you how many people said i would like to say something but if you use my name i am afraid they're going to come back to me. is that we have come to?

i call it declaration day. i know it is memorial day by calling point rating -- is about decorating our war veterans. a guy came up to me afterwards and said can i talk to you? i said sure. egos we were denied our status. here is the problem with this. what happened? some sort of certification was the problem. here is his fear. i am wondering now if it is because the penn township veterans association is made up mostly of republicans and we were targeted. we talked about killing. this is not being killing. the american people are frozen with fear. we have gone far beyond being chilling. we have exceeded, we have gone way over what this government is supposed to be able to do and i got to tell you when i talk to you all and see you hear and understand what you are going through, you don't have big

budgets to work with. the stall tactic to keep you on the sidelines forever -- mr. kookogey, what legal fees have you built up? >> i have my own legal fees because i'm an attorney. i have done everything quid pro quo. and last month, it represents as a nonprofit. that does not mean i can't have countless expenses. i have been funding loans to an organization i assumed one day would be granted tax status. 30, 40, 50,000 of my own money trying to wait for the day. >> the acl days representing us for free. >> hundreds of thousands of dollars, we tried to project our dollars and fight the nonsense

going to against this. >> meeting costs, legal costs, other things to run our group, speakers fees get a good trainers and organization and spoke to people. >> our society has taken responsibility for our financial assistance. >> and representing us and help our own costs. >> isn't it incredible when you are going through? to maintain your first amendment rights? this is not our problem in cincinnati. this is a problem deep in the bowels of this government. if there is some point we cannot stop this culture of fear, this government sponsored fear, we are really coming up short on the oath we tug, we didn't take it for the republican party. i am sick of hearing about it is about republicans -- this is about americans, basically who we are. we took an oath of office not to defend the rights of republicans

or democrats or libertarians autos could just want to live here and be left alone, we took an oath to defend our constitution. i applaud you for what you're doing today. do not give up on this because if you can solve them long enough and drive their costs high enough, it cost me 60 grand to get my dealer should back and i was told the system allows you to get it back. oh my goodness! i was able to get back with the government stole from me! isn't that a novel idea? thank you for what you are doing, stay the course, do not give up and spread the word to the american public, do not be afraid of this government. it is only when we fear the government that we lose. this is a government that is supposed to serve the people, the people are not supposed to serve it. keep up the fight, we are with you, we have got your back. >> mr. griffin is recognized. >> thank you so much for being here. reminds me of the somewhat famous quote that a government big enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you

have. that sort of goes to your quote earlier when you were talking about the government culture that we are dealing with here. what we have seen described here and in a previous hearing is a distant, ever growing, almost unlimited federal government that in many instances means well, but it is unresponsive to people that live thousands of miles away and the bigger it grows, the less accountable if is. this is another example of that. i want to clarify. there have been a lot of fact thrown around and a lot of myths as well. there was no surge in 501 c 4

applications in 2010. we have heard -- i know some people get talking points and read them and don't know what they mean. the washington post and the atlantic and many others reported there was no surge in 501 c 4 applications in 2010. it didn't happen. and we are not just talking about c 4s. as mr. young pointed out we are talking about c 3s. i am holding a lawsuit that relates to the street, they are trying to get organized and they are a pro israel group and i have got the questionnaire that they were sent and the irs were just trying to get 5013 c status, not c 4. the question, does your organization support the existence of the land of israel?

describe your organization have religious belief system toward the land of israel. it is unbelievable. what is interesting when pointed out here in the new york times a senior state department official was talking about some of the charitable groups active in the middle east and said that the funding for these groups is up problem because it is not helpful to the efforts we are trying to make. is there a connection? i don't know but it is outrageous that they would ask these sorts of things of groups. you heard some other members quote the investigation of the inspector general. i would point out as some others have that was an audit. there were no e-mails requested, no depositions, just scratches the surface and a lot of people didn't cite the fact that it

said conservative groups were targeted. that is why you are here. not a debate over the law. the fact that some groups were given a pass and some groups weren't. that is what this is about despite the fact that some people say it is about terminology or we haven't given them the right terms. gee you really need training to know that you don't ask americans what they are praying about? seriously. do you really need training to know that you don't approach the group and try to get a deal that they won't protest planned parenthood? it is unbelievable. if you have to write that type of stuff in the statute, we are just out of luck. that is just common sense. this is another great argument for tax reform. if you want to reduce the abuse

and the power of the irs, we need to reduce the complexity of the tax code that they enforce every day. i would just say in closing that i would encourage you to explore all of your options against this government. i would encourage you to look at 42 -- 1983 which allows you to sue when your rights have been violated. is a particularly first amendment rights. i would encourage you obviously, you have your own lawyers, but when citizens are treated the way you have been, i think you ought to use every tool that you can to hold this government accountable. we are going to do our job here but this is the federal government. agency after agency after agency is out of control and appreciate you all being brave and being here today. >> thank you. >> i wanted to get back and make

sure i thanked everyone of you for being here. i practiced in the business world for almost 30 years before i came here. have only been here 20 years and also had a cp a profession. i had to sit in front of those irs agents with clients or i had to get the letter from that individual that you all received from the irs and i got to tell you it was appalling not only what i heard some of your testimony was and what the irs did but they don't treat -- i sat in many situations with the irs and they never seemed to care for their time lines. it is amazing how long they make you wait and it is appalling this government allowed this to happen. one thing that is interesting for me as a business guy, when i took over a bad business it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to blame the guy who appointed a manager of the company before i took it

over. quite frankly we had to fix the problem and move forward. when i hear people say this was the george bush appointee or whenever, isn't it amazing? we should be talking about how to fix the problem, whoever is there. as leaders, we should be taking responsibility to make sure those problems are fixed. we had testimony two weeks ago from acting commissioner miller, and we was more interested in providing excuses. if i heard him how many times say i don't know and we hear that out of the agency, can you imagine if you to answer your questions i don't know what will happen to you. you would not have gotten -- you didn't get far that quickly but answering properly, i don't know if they withdraw your application away. but yet we have the acting commissioner in here two weeks ago talking about i don't know. giving a half-hearted apology, i found appalling and many of us

respond, i would wonder, as victims of many of these actions, i would consider them illegal. do you believe these actions by the irs tea were illegal? i would like to hear each one of your thoughts. i know illegal is a strong word but i would like to your thoughts. >> absolutely illegal. when the government uses the irs for political purposes this was part of the articles of impeachment in the nixon administration before he resigned. is a serious matter and clearly illegal to single us out for disparate treatment based on our political views. >> i agree with what he said. >> site chapter and verse section 7213 a 1 makes it a felony to disclose confidential tax returns. >> i agree with everyone here. was illegal. i think it was immoral. also very un-american. >> it is easy for me to sit here and say it is very illegal.

>> i agree. >> thank you. i will tell you that one thing they will say about me, i was a fighter and i believe in fighting with my clients. i appreciate you being here. i appreciate your fighting, don't ever quit and if you need anything to stand beside you give me a call. i yield back. >> last but not least, mr. reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the panelists here, coming to the end and i wanted to express my sincere thought that we stand with you. i have heard a bunch of my colleagues talk about how with certain individuals in washington been fired as a result of this, let's just be clear. mr. miller sat right where you were and when i asked him a question he had not been fired. he had been allowed to retire with full benefits. was trying a paycheck paid for by the american taxpayer, he tried to answer my question and

i say tried because he wanted to answer my questions. that frustrates me as i'm sure frustrates you too. he's not allowed to go on vacation on will call it. that is accountability in washington d.c.. that to me is unacceptable. what i wanted to leave today with, and miss gerritson said in her statement and i appreciate the hard fought nature of your statement, that a lot of people in washington forget who they work for. they work for you. not the other way around. that is the culture of abuse of power that i see in the irs and i want to hear from you how that makes you feel, that there really hasn't been any accountability as of yet. what would you ask us, me specifically as a member of this panel to do to make you feel that justice has been served?

>> i think it will take a lot for the american people to ever trust the irs simply because of the nature, the irs has always been a scary agency. what i would ask is like so many of you have already committed to do a full investigation, follow through on every lead, don't stop until you get to the bottom. we need to read this cancer so do what it is you need to do and we will be here to hold you accountable to do that. >> i appreciate that because if we don't do that, one of the things i am concerned about with my colleagues is if we don't get to the bottom of it, i listened to the testimony of each and every one of you, we heard the chilling effects of what the irs has done. you talk about the fact that some of you're pamphlets weren't produced, you talked about donors, shying away from going on and giving donations to your organization. that is a chilling effect and if

we don't hold this community, this city accountable, where do you think it is going to go? do you think it will get worse? they you think it will get better? would you advise us to sit silently by and do what so many elected officials have done before, there's a problem, we got to change the law to make sure it never happens again, we need to enforce the law that is on the books. this is a felony. matt is equivalent to? murderers are felons, robbers are felons. the law has been declared that we are going to hold this type of behavior accountable to the level of less seriousness of a felony and yet what we have heard so far is it was inadvertent, it was unmistakably does that make you feel better? that that is the standard we are going to potentially live with as the accountability measure for us in washington when the

claim is the divided and apart from what we know to be the truth, it doesn't make me feel better at all. >> i would also like to end with your words on this. the individuals that have stood up and come here and said you are not going to be silent and i applaud that, but how many of your colleagues, similar to one that came to me during the week when i was back home in working the district said i will tell you what happened to me but don't use my name. how many do you think are out there? any of you offer any hazards to guess what that is? >> just last week i had one of our attendees say please take my name off of the e-mail, i am afraid. there is a lot of language hear about people going in and out of the shadows. the citizenship tickets in this particular place with this issue should be the rule of law.

nothing more, nothing less. please go where these facts lead you. >> anyone hazard a guess? thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? 300 plus americans watching this on tv? do you think many americans with the busy lives they have are going to say that is what i want to do with my free time? >> the prospect of challenging the irs and having your last ten years of tax returns gone through with a fine tooth comb is chilling for many americans. for the first time i've bosh audit defense when i filed my audit turbo tax tax returns. they say don't fight city hall but at some point you have to stand and fight or city hall is no longer what it is supposed to be. >> another member seeks recognition. mr. crowley is recognized. >> i am sorry i had to step out, i missed a few statements. one in pretty good by one of my

colleagues. let me start by saying to the witnesses you are all victims here. and you and so many other groups, conservative and progressive all like targeted by the irs are the victims and to say otherwise is wrong and does not representative of the democratic party as well. as the chairman noted in an e-mail he said that yesterday. the outrage at what is occurring at the irs is shared by republicans and democrats alike. second, while i welcome the witnesses i would like to highlight the minority party are typically allowed to invite one witness to each hearing. we did not invite any witness to this hearing. it is not because progressive groups were not targeted by the irs, they were. in fact the tee ig report looking into this targeting documented that fact. i would like to submit for the record this list of dozens of progressive groups who were

inappropriately targeted alongside tea party groups by the irs. >> without objection and i would say to mr. crowley the minority did not identify any witnesses that had been targeted by the irs but were given an opportunity. >> i'm still making my -- >> that is correct. >> my point, mr. chairman the >> you may continue. >> instead of making this about ideological groups we democrats want to make this hearing about the facts and how we prevent this targeting from happening again. whether it be the targeting of progressive or conservative groups and everyone else in between, although the members of groups testifying today might never vote for me, if i was on their ballot, i want each everyone of them to know as a congress, we collectively represent you. as many may recall i asked lois lerner of the irs tax exempt

office about whether the irs was politically targeting groups two days before she and the irs came clean to the world's and admitted the agency was in fact screen on ideological grounds. many have asked me why i asked about this matter before the public awareness around -- outrage took place. the reason is no americans should be targeted by the government for their personal views and i wanted to get to the bottom of the rumors that had been circulating for some time that the irs was once again targeting certain individuals. this is not the irs's first time mixing of its mission with its personal politics, starting in 2002, and 2004 under then president bush the irs went after progress of christian churches, the naacp and environmental groups and its actions are as wrong today as they were in 2004. while i don't recall the same bipartisan outrage existing then as i believe it does today, it

should have. no agency has the right to targets or discriminate based on political ideology. i do want to correct the record on a few matters. and republican parties have been working overtime to paint this as a political conspiracy by the white house. there is no evidence tying this to the white house. the report makes it clear. at our most recent hearing the treasury inspector general who was appointed by president bush testified no officials that the treasury department or the white house were involved or knew of anything about the targeting. the same inspector general under questioning from congresswomen jenkins said questioning or investigating senior treasury department and any obama administration official he thought was involved, but again he testified under oath that they were not involved. i would like to submit the discussion between ms. jenkins and the treasury into the

record. >> without objection. >> it was the same inspector general notified congressional republicans including chairman darrell issa, investigation into political targeting of groups by the irs in summer of 2012 months before the 2012 national elections, i would like to submit to the inspector general, brought it to darrell issa and jim jordan confirming this investigation into the ira's stated july 11th, 2012, for the record. >> without objection. >> do you really think if there was evidence of political targeting at highest levels of our government during an election year members of congress like chairman darrell issa would have sat quietly and not brought this to the public's attention? i think this speaks for itself. he did nothing and said nothing because there was no whistle to blow. ..

>> thank you. your time has expired. i want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today. it's not an easy thing to do to sit through a congressional hearing and answer questions from a whole variety of perspectives of members that i want to tell you how impressed i am with the answers that you gave and the quality of your testimony. i am also impressed with your moral conviction, the perseverance and the courage you have shown by being here today

and representing so many other americans who are equally affected. you have helped the committee a great deal but more importantly you have helped the american people a great deal and help the nation a great deal and i thank you very much for that and with that, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i thought the hearing was actually a very powerful hearing and it's very clear that this is not just a list of a few people but there's a systematic -- it's not working? should i start over? first i want to say that was a very powerful hearing and i think it's very clear that is not just a semantics. this is a systematic approach to

this whole issue and this really gave i think a voice to what hundreds of americans have gone through. and i really meant it when i said i was impressed by the quality of the testimony. it's a difficult format for the uninitiated and to hear their stories first-hand and what it meant to them and to the country was very powerful. so, thank you. certainly the investigation will continue. we are really just beginning and we are going to need to be interviewing certainly more witnesses probably in an interview format. but that will be the next phase we move into. it was important i think to hear personally from people who were affected and not just have the transcript of what may have occurred to them but to actually hear what they have to say. i thought their voices were

strong and very important to hear from them. we are going to be hearing hopefully we will be interviewing a number of people who worked at the irs during this period of time. i'm not sure. >> what if we learned so far from -- [inaudible] >> we have just begun so i don't think it's really appropriate to draw conclusions yet. we have a lot more to do and after that i will be able to certainly draw some conclusions. [inaudible] >> we have just begun some interviews from that office. we have spoken to a couple of people there. there is obviously a lot more we need to do. [inaudible] >> i think it's much broader than that and clearly when we get to the fact that donor information was disclosed in this is involving 501(c)(3)'s it's really a broader look at that. at the end there may be some

legislative changes that we need to make but i think at this point we are really just trying to get our hands on the scope of the issue including the scope that it was larger than was first thought. it's not just a couple of people in one office. this is a nationwide systematic nationwide systematic approach to targeting people with certain political beliefs, particularly conservative beliefs. i think this is what we are trying to understand how far this goes and we still don't know who initiated this and we don't know how far it goes up the chain and we are still trying to figure it out. the tax code, so what you're talking about? >> i think it certainly shows a simpler tax code would give a lot more discretion to the irs and i think one of the witnesses said that as well. it could be certainly more brief review of documents as opposed to these kinds of very complex judgment calls and that would be certainly very helpful.

>> using your authority to look attacks information and find out more about what actually happened? >> i may and i certainly have that authority and i'm going to use it at the appropriate time. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> we will hear more about the irs tomorrow during a hearing of the house oversight and government reform committee.

>> let us pray. oh god, thank you for being near to us in good and bad times. we celebrate your wonderful blessings that rang as new victories each day. as we look at the flowers on the

desks of our friend and brother senator frank lautenberg, we thank you for his life and legacy. as we mourn his death, send your comfort into our hearts. bless bonnie and his family and give them your peace. let our memory of this good and courageous american inspire us to transcend the barriers that divide us and to work for the good of america. we pray in your merciful name, amen.

>> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> the clerk will read a communication to the senate. see washington d.c. the senate. under provisions of rule one paragraph the standing rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable tim kaine the senator from the commonwealth of virginia to perform the duties of the chair of patrick j. leahy president pro tempore. >> the majority leader. >> we will observe a moment of silence in honor of frank lautenberg a senator from the state of new jersey. >> the the senate will observe a

motive silence. all could please stand. see mr. president. >> the majority leader. >> a few matters i must take care of four. mcavoy in business. the senate will resume consideration of the farm bill and two amendments to that bill. there are two bills at the that the desks due for a second reading.

>> the clerk will read the titles of the bills for a second time. >> h.r. 3 an act to approve the construction operation and maintenance of the keystone xl pipeline and services. h.r. 271 an act to clarify the compliance with an emergency order under section 202c of the federal power federal power act and so forth for other purposes. see mr. president i object to both proceedings with regards to both of these matters. >> objection having been heard. the measures will now be placed on the calendar. >> mr. president, when i learned early this morning that frank lautenberg had died of course i became immediately very very sad. i have served with him for two and a half decades or more here in the senate and to see now that the flowers on his desk. it it seems the flowers have

barely wilted on the desk that was right behind me, senator inouye. i mr. president have a heavy heart. the senior senator from new jersey and my friend frank lautenberg died this morning as we all know. my thoughts are with his lovely wife bonnie, his children and 13 grandchildren. few people in the history of this institution have contributed this much to our nation and the united states senate as frank lautenberg. a success story is what the american dream is all about. he came from a family of working-class immigrants from eastern europe, russia and poland. his parents struggle. i have heard frank talk about how they had struggled. they worked so hard. they moved around new jersey often. when frank was 18 during the

middle of world war ii he enlisted in the united states army. during world war ii he served in the signal corps and i can remember frank talking about his experiences in the european theater. once he said he was on the army signal corps. he was up on a wooden power pole and he could see a war going on in his site. during world war ii he talked about the many experiences he had and as he said making him a better american. he was very proud of his military service. he is the last world war ii veteran having served in the senate. we don't have any world war ii veterans anymore mr. president. his death is a great loss for this institution and in many different ways.

when frank came home from the war he was obviously very smart and was promoted to a very prestigious columbia university. he did it of course on the g.i. bill like millions of other returning americans did. but he quickly found his own business, his own company, he did it with two boyhood friends all three of them from new jersey, three kids from new jersey. under his leadership this firm automatic data processing known as adp one of the largest computing companies in the world. he was so very proud of that company and he never hesitated to tell everyone. he made money. he became rich. he was a poor boy and became wealthy as a result people being able to fill their dreams as people can do in america.

frank was not -- he was proud of the civic things he did but nothing made him more proud than what he did outside of government than when he served as the head of the united jewish appeal. known as the judas -- jewish federation of north america. he was very proud of that. mr. president, frank lautenberg was known for many many things. before he came to the senate, he ran for the senate and was elected in 1982. he came to the congress the same year that i did and in the three decades since he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the state and the country. he retired once. he couldn't stand retirement. he hated retirement. he couldn't stay away from public service and he returned to the senate again in 2002.

he had a remarkable career. i have just touched upon a few things. his determination that made him successful in the private sector also served him well in the united states senate. mr. president motivated by his own experience senator lautenberg a world war ii veteran 21st century bill of rights recognizing how much this meant to him and he wanted to help ensure that the vets returning from iraq and afghanistan enjoy the same opportunities or education that's helped him become so successful. mr. president, my youngest boy just hated cigarette smoke. and it really made him ill. airplanes, remember we went through procedure where you could smoke every place in the

airplane and finally only part of the airplane but it didn't matter because everyone got that smoke. frank lautenberg took care of my boy and millions of other people who would no longer have to read them that smoke when they are in an airplane. he is the one more than anyone else that we have to thank for protecting us from deadly secondhand smoke in an airplane. because his legislation bans smoking on airplanes. but also he was a longtime member of the public works committee had heading it for the short period of time that he did he would have been chairman of the committee. because he wasn't there i got the opportunity opportunity to be chaired that committee actually on two separate occasions. so he focused on the infrastructure, roads and highways and one of the things he thought would make this country a much safer place is to

pass a drinking limit. that is you couldn't drink out of hall in the place in the country unless you were 21 years of age. the national drunk driving standard is what it was called. he believed in helping the state of new jersey. that was his first priority. and his second pryor did was hoping the country and i'm not sure which order they came. it was hard to understand the difference between frank lautenberg focusing on the country in new jersey at the same time. frank wanted to make sure women and children were protected from gun violence and because of him we passed legislation here that convicted domestic abusers and firearms. just a few examples of his work in the senate that literally saved lives. and mr. president he came out of his sick bed in a wheelchair to vote on gun legislation.

he agreed with 90% of the american people, people who had severe mental problems or were felons. he agreed with 90% of the american people and he came from his bed to come here and vote with us. he was so happy to be here. he came once after that's just a few days ago to vote when we needed him again. he tried so hard. talking to bonnie today she said he was confident in living to be 100. he was a strong man physically. a few years ago i took a big delegation to china, a bipartisan group. it was a wonderful trip. frank lautenberg, that was his last foreign travel and i can remember indicating what a strong man he was physically.

i hadn't been to the great wall of china. it is pretty steep and with big rocks there that have been there for centuries and centuries. and because frank was 88 years old at the time somebody grabbed his arm to help him go and he pushed them away. he wanted no help from anybody. he was on his own and that is the way he wanted to be. i and our nation owe a great debt of gratitude to frank for his service. he has always been so kind to me. he was one that really appreciated his service. he appreciated being here. he loved being in the senate and the nation is going to miss his strength and his progressive leadership. mr. president the other thing that probably a lot of people don't know about frank

lautenberg, his sense of humor. i had him tell the story because no one could tell the story like him but another reason i hate like to frank as he laughed at his own jokes. he thought they were funny as most everyone listening to them did. one of our favorites was about two wrestlers. it would take him about five minutes or more to tell the story but it was hilarious. no one could tell it like frank. he had a sense of humor and we certainly appreciated that. even those in the united states senate mr. president at midnight last night, al franken and we still have al franken is there word -- was room for two funny people. frank and -- al franken and frank lautenberg

always made us smile and often made us laugh. i guess it's going to be up to senator franken to do this, as they were both really really funny together and apart. it's with deep sadness that the senate family is going to say goodbye. we are going to do that wednesday morning. an exemplary public servant and a faithful friend, senator frank lautenberg. i note the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> attribute from senate majority leader harry reid from monday and now live to new york city for the funeral for former new jersey senator frank

lautenberg taking place today at the park avenue synagogue. we are expecting remarks from vice president joe biden senator bob menendez of new jersey former secretary of state hillary clinton and the lautenberg family. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> to bonnie, to ellen and lisa and josh, to danielle and to laura. i ask you to rise. tradition explains at at the the moment of a loved one's passing waiver site and ancient blessing , painful as it may be acknowledging the moment of death is upon us which we recited in the hospital just a few days ago. repeat after me.

praised are you lord our god, king of the universe, judge of truth. the following passages taken from the book of job a man who new great suffering in his own day. you can repeat after me. god has given and god has taken. praise be the name of god. the act of -- means pairing and signifies the act that which we love most being torn away from us.

i will ask you to recite the ancient words, an affirmation of faith given in this moment of sorrow. we reach out to god for comfort. ♪ the lord our god, the lord is one. you may be seated. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> psalm 23, a psalm of david. the lord is my shepherd i shall not want. he makes me to lie down in green pastures. he leads me beside the still waters. he restores my soul. he guides me in straight paths for his namesake. yea though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death i will fear no evil for thou are worth me.

thy rod and staff they comfort me. in the presence of mine of mine enemies thou hast anointed my head with oil and my cup runneth over. surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and i shall dwell in the house of the lord forever. amen. early monday morning, the soul of senator frank lautenberg passed into god's eternal embrace. a life journey of 89 years. son of new jersey, world war ii veteran, businessmen, public servant, statesman, loving son, brother, husband, father,

grandfather and -- through and through. ending with a final breath sealed with a kiss of the divine. as a nation, we acknowledge vice president biden, governor christie, secretary ray lahood, secretary clinton, distinguished united states senators, distinguished members of the house of representatives, officials from the great state of new jersey, consul-general, honored guests. as a nation and colleagues as family and friends we mourn the loss of senator lautenberg's

high ideals and most of all to offer comfort to the bereaved family in their sorrow. frank lautenberg, son of sam and molly a blessed memory brother to mary ann and larry both of whom we recall weaver call here today. our deepest condolences to the children, to ellen, to lisa and douglas, to josh and christina, to danielle and stewart, to laura and to cory. to you bonnie, our hearts and our prayers are with you on the passing of your beloved. the care and the compassion that you extended to frank every step of the way, especially these last few days, we commit to supporting you now in your loss.

senator lautenberg lived to see the greatest blessing, the birth of his children's children aaron tell you jonathan lawrence sera molly hanna sam hudson avery and macy. we pray that each of you shall find comfort in the blessing of your grandfather's memory and always feel the gentle caress of his presence in your lives. a proud american and a proud senator lautenberg's abiding awareness of his roots. the commandment to always remember one's origins, to recall that you were once a stranger in a strange land. his values, his agenda, his accomplishments deeply personal if not autobiographical in nature. a few examples. having grown up in the most modest of circumstances, as family so poor i am told they

couldn't afford his bar mitzvah. frank had to learn very quickly how to take care of himself. he came out fighting and he never stopped. throughout his life in the private and the public sector he understood the value of hard work and get successful as he would become because of where he came from frank would always be a man of the people and for the people, never forgetting his humble start. ever-present was the memory of his loving father sam who died too young went frank was but a teenager, casualty of the mills in which he labored. he lived with the memory of his father running his fingers across a machine filled with accumulated set. the senator's lifelong commitment to work lace and chemical safety embedded in the very conditions his father faced and some still face each and every day. alternatively the senator was well aware of the blessing of the g.i. bill that provided him with the opportunity to raise himself up following the war and

awareness that would compel him to help others achieve the american dream for which he was so grateful. so too the senator would be an advocate on behalf of women's causes not just because he was surrounded by the strong women of his family throughout his life, though i am sure that was part of it, but he could see forever recalled the injustice of seeing his mother being laid off following the war. senator lautenberg was not one to look back certainly not with regret that he understood that an awareness of one's past informs one's presence and keeps priorities. whatever the environment cancer research the united jewish appeal legislation the immigration of russian jewry his commitment to israel one may understand the senator's lifetime of personal legislative and philanthropic commitment as

windows into his soul. no matter what one's station in this world life only has meaning insofar as it is directed towards the betterment of those around us. senator lautenberg understood it to be his mission, his application to leave this world for his grandchildren in better condition than in which it was received. but as much as his outward achievements perhaps it was senator's personal demeanor that speaks his story. in every exchange we ever had, he more than exemplified kipling's poetic ideal of being able to walk well never used -- losing the common touch whether it was the synagogue sitting side-by-side at an event celebrating a family occasion or a sabbath meal and hearing of his grandchildren i was always struck by how totally human he was. beneath the formality and the titles a profound humility, a

genuine kindness and a terrific sense of humor. his jokes, funny even on the second, third or fourth telling. [laughter] i will forever be grateful for the constant kindness and encouragement that he and you bonnie and the whole family extended to me personally and for this community. there is both a sting and a poetic comfort that senator lautenberg as this time of year as the synagogue and around the world should read of the decree that moses having led the israelites out of egypt and through the wilderness would not enter the promised land. none of us ever lived to see the fullness of fact for which we toil. by definition it extends beyond the horizon of our mortality and yet it is in this realization that we come to understand that the measure of a life is not

found in a win loss column, some sort of cosmic balance sheets. rather the difference between success and failure is whether we given the hand we were dealt, whether we help to solve the problems of our day, whether we address the needs of the hour and whether we squeezed every moment for all it's worth. as theodore roosevelt famously counseled, it's not the critic who counts. it's not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done the better. the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood who who strives fallin playing and comes short again and again. if he fails at least he fails while daring greatly so his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. every day of his life senator

lautenberg feared greatly. he left it all out on the field. he gave of his passions towards the betterment of this country and his common humanity. he was the man in the arena. never amongst the souls too timid to fight. be at his allies are adversaries all agreed that senator lautenberg's life was impelled by ideals larger than him. ever grateful for the opportunities afforded to him, ever mindful of his obligations to those make in the same struggle. a final thought. as a young rabbi, separated from the senator by multiple generations in reflecting on some of his more well-known legislative accomplishments, a legal drinking age, a ban on smoking on commercial flights, aviation safety, the

establishment of national parks and otherwise, i am struck by the feeling and the question of how it could have been possible to have thought or lived otherwise. in other words, to realize that those matters which were undoubtedly fierce debates in their time, pioneering stances for which the senator withstood withering criticism now in retrospect appear as an inevitable and obvious as they seem necessary. as such, the untimely passing of senator lautenberg leaves us with a way t. and inspiring question of what priorities on his present and prezant agenda that will in the years to come similarly be understood in retrospect as inevitable, obvious and necessary. it's a question that fortunately

need not languish and determinedly without action. after all, today we commit ourselves not just to honoring his memory but as he would have done, leverage that awareness for shaping our future to pick up the charge, to lay the foundation for the next generation and in doing so, assure that his memory, the memory of senator frank lautenberg is for blessing. throughout his life senator lautenberg brought people together from all walks of life, from cantor schwartz trained in israel, conservative rabbi and now my great honor and privilege to call on rabbi daniel cowen is reformed rabbi from temple israel of south orange new jersey to speak.

>> the 15th psalm begins with a question. our god who may abide in your house may dwell upon your holy mountain. those who are upright and do justly to speak the truth within their hearts who do not slander others or wrong them, who scorned the love is but -- who revere god who gave give their word and no matter what they do not retract it. they do not exploit others or take it bandage. so it is in this way he shall never be shaken. we honor a man who truly lived in this way.

when i first came to the temple israel in south orange new jersey 21 years ago, i was thrilled to discover that among the congregations membership was one senator frank lautenberg. having grown up in a household that defined itself by its liberal democratic values, senator lautenberg was a household name ,-com,-com ma an iconic figure, someone who earned the admiration of my parents and our family friends. not easy. here was a man who like my father was the son of jewish immigrants. a man who worked hard and achieved success and then use that success to do good in the world both through his philanthropy and his political involvement. senator lautenberg never forgot his humble beginnings and those memories fueled his passion and commitment to eternal love, to

making a difference in the lives of others. i was honored each jewish new year to welcome the senator to the pulpit to have family prayer for the state of israel and then together with his new jersey congregation to read the prayer for our nation's leaders. a privilege each and every year. ..