the targeting involved irs our purses -- offices across the country, including her office in washington. lois lerner took the fifth for a reason. government employees did not go rogue en masse. their orders originate somewhere. with all these violations of the law, no one has been lamed, fired, arrested, or brought to justice. because of that i have to ask how many people in congress are taking this seriously. since my i still have not been contacted by the fbi. the fbi told the wall street journal no one would be charged with a crime if they have not even interviewed the witnesses. will you let them get away with this? i must say again my government has forgotten its place. it appears many in washington regular citizens standing up for constitutional limited government. why is it now considered a

threat to our government to study the founding documents and advocate for responsible spending? out copies of the constitution, discussing pending legislation or even creating legislative scorecards a threat to the administration? legislation or even creating legislative score cards a threat to this administration? obviously these activities are viewed as subversive to their agenda. otherwise, they wouldn't have tried to stop us. in my previous testimony i explained that our application was complete and accurate. we easily qualified for a 501(c)(4) status, yet that did not stop the irs from demanding information they were not entitled to. unconstitutional requests that violated even their own rules. the information they demanded from us had nothing to do with our tax status. why must the irs know who is coming to our meetings? why did they need to have copies of every speech ever given and the credentials of those

speakers? why did they need to know who our donors were? there's clearly something wrong with this. the irs's targeting of the wet tum ka tea party and other conservative religious groups is profoundly disturbing. i'm offended a member of congress -- of the united states senate would continually request the irs to go after americans like me because they do not agree with our values. this sun precedented. never before has the federal government tried to muzzle everyday americans solely because of their political view. the governments of third world nations intimidate and harass dissenting citizens. it does not happen in the land of the free until recently. it's shocking. it's pathetic. it's infuriating and depressing. but most troubling of all is congress has not stopped this. it's actually gotten worse. during these past eight months congress has quietly sat by while the irs has proposed to cover up their targeting by rewriting the rules for

501(c)(4)s, rules which are an ardent attempt to shut us down completely. one of our most sacred fundamental rights in this country is freedom of speech. but the irs under this administration wants to strike out 226 years of history with a key stroke. under these new rules, we are not allowed to use the words oppose, vote, support, defeat or reject. we're not allowed to mention on our website or in any communication that would reach over 500 people even the name of a candidate who is running 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. we are not allowed to mention the name of a political party if they have a candidate running for 60 days before an election. no more voter registration drives, no more conducting get out the vote drives. no creating or distributing voter guides outlining incumbents' voting records oopsz. we can't even host candidates for debates or forums less than 60 days before a general

election. our officers and our leaders cannot speak publicly about incumbents, legislation and/or voting records without jeopardizing our tax the tus. does this sound like the land of the free or the home of the brave to you? the political targeting carried out by the irs is a fundamental transformation of the america we all grew up in. like catherine, i'm not here as a victim because i refuse to be a victim. i am a born free american woman, and these abuses of power put all americans' liberties at risk. our government is using its agencies as weapons against its own citizens, and history shows that unaddressed abuses of power lead to greater abuses of power. i, along with my fellow americans are looking to you on this committee to restores the faith that you really do represent us. we implore you to use the full force of the law to stop these abuses immediately and to bring to justice not only those who gave the orders, but all who helped carry them out. i want the federal government to

know and the irs to know that you will not divide us, you will not conquer us, and we will not be silenced. thank you. >> thank you mrs. garretson. mr. sakhalin. >> chairman and ranking members, members of the committee, on behalf of the american center for law and justice, thank you for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i represent 41 organizations that have filed a lawsuit against the internal revenue service. my first job out of law school was with the office of chief counsel of the ir sfrmts. i was a trial lawyer for chief counsel's office. i'm proud of that heritage in my legal career. i'm disappointed and dismays with what the irs is doing. i have prepared comments. i'd like those to be made part of the record. i'm going to deviate from those for the moment because of a recent revelation. before i do that, mr. cartwright

i'd like to give you information about the progressive groups that were targeted. however, this is the irs's own statistics through july 29 of last year. 104 conservative organizations, according to the irs were targeted. they were asked 1552 questions. the average question per group was 15, that did not include the subparts. 48 were approved which was an overall approval rating of only 46%. indeed seven progressive groups somehow got caught up in this drag net because of their names. they were asked a total of 33 questions or 4.7 questions per organization. seven of them were approved. that's 100%. this wasn't an equal opportunity discrimination. this was targeted discrimination coming from the internal revenue service. what i'd like to address now is that our view is that that determination came from the highest ranks of the internal

revenue service. just yesterday it was brought to the public's attention that an e-mail had been sent by lois lerner, the former head of tax-exempt. she pled the fifth amendment. based on the evidence that came out yesterday, if i was her lawyer, i would have told her to plead the fifth also. here is why. an e-mail from lois lerner with ruth mad grill from the office of tax policy, united states department of the treasury. it went to janine cook, deputy division counsel and associate chief counsel of the irs tax-exempt and government entities division. i went to victoria judson, division counsel, associate chief counsel, tax-exempt and government entities division. it went to nancy j. marks, division counsel and associate chief counsel for tax-exempt and government entities and a senior adviser who conducted a probe for stephen miller, by the way,

with hole by paz into the impropriety months before this e-mail. what was this e-mail? it was an e-mail we will work, quote, off plan, to device rules to curtail the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations. off-plan. that's very different from saying two rogue agents in cincinnati. if i was lois lerner's attorney, i would have told her to plead the fifth amendment, too, because there's serious liability. with regard to the facts of this case, we have 41 clients. late in december i haves i was contacted by the united states department of justice, the fbi and ms. bosser man was on the call as well. they requested at that point they might want to after the first of the year interview three of our 41 clients. they said they'd get back with us after the first of the year. they did. and about the same day they got back with us, of course, the announcement about ms. bosser man's political contributions was made public. that was followed up by a

statement to the "wall street journal" by an fbi source that there was indeed no criminal investigation. my office's comment back, the lawyer in my office tasked with dealing with this issue is a former assistant united states attorney. if there is no criminal investigation, why do you need to speak to our comments? no comment. they said they will not discuss the on going investigation. the next question which i think is a very serious one is the fact that the fbi, in desiring to speak with our client, we raised the concern of barbara bosser man. mr. cartwright with due respect, it's not because of her capabilities as a lawyer. i'm sure she's a fine lawyer, a career lawyer. you cited an ethics rule. chairman jordan, you cited the rule. the obligation is not on the department of justice. it's on the lawyer. the lawyer has to avoid the appearance of impropriety. if you're heading up the investigation and we're assuming she is. know one has ever been very clear on that. you can't head up the

investigation in an impartial method if the public thinks there's even a potential for bias or an inappropriate position. it was very simple for the department of justice to solve this. they didn't have to go in and ask for her political position. she should have the -- she has the affirmative obligation to tell her supervisor, i could be compromised in this, it would be best if someone maybe from public corruption took a look at that. i'm just saying that for the record so we're clear on the evidence. but what we have right here in the few moments i have left. >> she may have said -- she could have said that and the department say no, we want you to head the investigation. that's my hunch. >> that's why i'm saying that i don't want to impugn her integrity. i don't think it's fair to do that. >> i agree. i agree. >> i don't know what statements she made. she did have the obligation. let me say this, the irs attempt now to change the rules falls on two systematic problems. number one, you don't get to change the rules for a posthoc

justification of your prior bad and illegal comment, number one. number two, remember that the acting commissioner, when this first broke, proposed a scenario where he would do a 40% self certification to grant exemptions to the c 4 organizations if they would self certify that no more than 40% of their activity was deemed political. my clients do not exercise that. if some client of some lawyer did exercise that, there are over 300 of these groups targeted, if they did exercise that, how would you like to be the lawyer that told their client to exercise the 40% rule and then nine weeks later the irs say, by the way, 40%, we've changed the definition of political activity. you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game to justify your bad behavior. thank you, mr. chairman. >> through, mr. sec low. we appreciate that. recognize the choice chair of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses. this targeting issue is

obviously very concerning. but understanding the government being what it is, understanding human nature, people are apartment to abuse their power. what's even more concerning for me is that once you have an admission of that, once you have somebody taking the fifth amendment, there's zero interest in rectifying any of this, in what the irs has done, what the fbi has done, the justice department, gri with the witnesses. this is a total sham and the american people aren't getting the answers. ms. engelbrecht, you mentioned in your statement but it bears repeating, you had 20 years in bids, zero issues with any agencies. you file for king street and true the vote for status and you're visited by how many different agencies? which ones? fbi. >> fbi, irs, bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms. >> atf. >> osha. >> osha. >> and the texas branch of the

epa. >> you mentioned very eloquently you're going to keep fighting, and i see that obviously. when you have to deal with this, you have a business, other things, trying to impact the country in a positive direction, when you have to deal with these agencies like this, it makes you less effective in pursuing your message. it has to. am i right? >> it certainly gives one pause to think there is interagency collusion against private citizenses. it's the weaponization of government. >> do you think people similarly sit rated to you may look at what happens to people to speak out and decide i don't want to deal with that and i'm just going to remain silent? >> that's absolutely the case. >> ms. garretson, what was the irs asking you to provide? it seems like these were very invasive and intrusive questions. >> they sent me a list of approximately 80 queps.

it was an eight-page document. some of the questions they asked, they wanted to know all of my members' names. they wanted to know volunteers' names. >> which by the way, we already know lois lerner disclosed for tax information she got caught red-handed in an e-mail, this stuff is supposed to be confidential. we know a lot of times it's not kept confidential. >> they wanted copies of every peach ever given, credentials of who the speakers were. they wanted to know if any of our members or volunteers were going to run for office and if so, what office? remember this was the 2012 election cycle when we got this questionnaire. they wanted to know if i had -- they wanted to know any communications that i have had with any legislative body, even within my own representative. they wanted e-mails, phone contact. they wanted to know what i was saying to my legislator. >> i'll ask a similar question for you. just seeing that, a lot of people getting involved in

politics for the first time, you're seeing all these questions, you think that some people just look at that and say i don't want to have to deal with this? in other words, this has caused some people to silence themselves? >> absolutely. we have a group in alabama who said they got their letter and said we're not going to do this and they stopped. >> ms. mitchell, do you agree with mr. sec low, this idea they were targeting everybody, liberal groups as well, that is false in your judgment, correct? >> it's absolutely false. the records don't substantiate that. i know that's one of the things that people have been using since last summer as a means of trying to discredit or to thwart the investigation. i'll give you one example. there was a report that was released by -- published in "usa today" last september which was an internal irs document that listed 162 organizations that were on the watch list or development list at the irs. and i think the number that cuz

calculated was 83% were conservative. i'll give you the example. this was a document prepared in november of 2011. king street patriots is listed on there with a -- it says on the report -- likely approval, november of 2011, likely approval. also on that list is one of the few liberal groups, progress texas. and references in the comments that this is an organization that appears to engage in anti-rick perry propaganda, november 2011. fast forward, progress texas gets its tax-exempt status by may of 2012. king street patriots did not get its tax-exempt status until two months ago after going through yet more rounds of questioning. >> thank you. i'm about out of time. i want to ask mr. sec low, what the administration is trying to

do with this c 4, is it safe to say that if that is in effect, that would disproportionally affect conservative groups? in other words, a lot of the labor unions and environmental groups would not be affected by that. is that correct? >> correct. a lot of those are exempt under different provisions of the internal revenue code. in that regard and with regard to the questioning aspect of this and the chilling effect which i think is what you're going after, we have a client, pro life organization that is one of the ones targetsed. the questions to them were so draconian in nature, this is what they asked. talking about the client's pro life position, this is the irs. the presentation of viewpoints or positions are unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organization's communications. the facts that pro purport to support the viewpoint or positions are distorted. this is from an irs agent. you make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express concerns more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than objective

evaluations. the approached used in the organization's presentation is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or read ship because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter. who gave the irs the authority to say this, and how is it that the president of the united states can say there's not a smidgeon of corruption when the documents -- by the way, some of these signed by lois learner or holly pass -- how can they possibly say this? the thing i don't understand, mr. chairman, as the president was making his statements, as members of this committee were making statements, we had the documents in our possession from offices all over the country coast to coast. the agents told our clients it was being managed out of washington, and with the e-mail released yesterday we know how high up the chain. i would urge the committee, when you start talking about associate chief council's divisional counsels, this is as high as it gets. >> well said.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said at the outset of this hearing, i am deeply troubled regarding irs employees improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status. however, i am encouraged that senior leadership of the agency during this period has been removed. in december the senate confirmed a new commissioner of the irs and he has pledged his commitment to cooperating with congress and reforming the agency. i do look forward to working with him. while i welcome the opportunity to hear the concerns of these witnesses to participate in this hearing, i do fear that the committee is once again presenting only one side of the story. the committee's ten-month-long investigation has uncovered no evidence to support claims that the irs was targeting any groups for political reasons. not one single witness has appeared before this committee and told us that the white house was involved in directing the conduct of the irs employees. the deputy inspector general for

investigations identified absolutely no evidence of political motivation after a review of more than 5,000 e-mails of irs employees. that was russell george. he was the one whose report really sparked this committee's hearings. i personally asked him that question, did you find evidence of political motivation for what was going on? he said no. instead, as we learned in a transcribed interview last year it was a self-described conservative republican manager in cincinnati who oversaw irs employees who developed the inappropriate criteria for examination. mr. sec low, you were helpful with some statistics this morning. i wanted to ask you about that. you mentioned 104 conservative groups targeted. is that the number? >> this is from the report of the irs dated through july 2010,

104 conservative organizations in that report were targeted. >> and then seven progressive targeted groups? >> seven progressive targeted groups, all of which received their tax exemption. >> does it give the total number of applications? in other words, 104 conservative groups targeted? how many conservative groups applied? >> in the tip that report there were numbers 283 that they had become part of the target. actually, applications, a lot of the irs justification for this was an increase in applications. there was actually a decrease in the number. >> does it give the number of progressive groups that applied? >> no. the only group that has the progressive -- >> no? >> the one i have -- the report i have in front of me which is the one which just has the seven. >> okay. thank you. >> none of those have been denied, though. >> in addition, the committee's investigation into this matter revealed the irs also sought out liberal groups with these words, progressive or occupy in the

names. at an oversight committee hearing last year russell george admitted he actually failed to inform our committee that he was aware of progressive groups receiving similar treat as conservative groups. ms. mitchell, you favored us with your testimony this morning. thanks again for coming. we just found out about you monday afternoon. we didn't have too much time to read about you. i saw your extensive cv which is on line, and it's -- it has you as a partner at the foley lardner law firm in washington. is that right? >> correct. >> and it says you are a member of the firm's political law practice. is that correct? >> correct. >> the firm has a taxation practice that's different from the political law practice. >> correct. >> you're in the political law practice.

if i'm not mistaken, you have personally served as legal counsel to the national republican senatorial committee. am i correct in that? >> among others, yes. >> you have personally served as legal counsel to the national republican congressional committee as well. am i correct in that? >> correct. >> you served as a legislator in oklahoma, am i correct? >> correct. >> would that be as a republican legislator? >> no. actually i was a democrat that, until i realized that would become the government of the government and not the people. >> mr. cartwright, just for the record, not all of us would agree with that. we're entitled to our political views, too. >> thank you, mr. connolly. the question i have for you, in your law practice, your political law practice, how many progressive groups do you represent right now? >> none, because it doesn't work that way. >> how many liberal groups? >> it doesn't work that way. it doesn't work that way, congressman. >> you testified that you

represent tea party groups? >> i do. >> so it works that way. >> that's right. as i say to people, in this law practice, you can't play for usc and notre dame. you have to pick a team. >> how many occupy groups do you represent? >> i wouldn't represent one of them on a bed. >> i've represented the aclu however, mr. cartwright. >> in light of that members and sta have been excluded from meetings with the inspector general's staff, serious concerns about the i'm pashlt of the work of the majority of this committee. sadly only tea party groups are represented before this panel today. one of them has already testified before congress. since the identity of witnesses was only revealed on monday afternoon i was staff was unable to identify a minority witness on such short notice. as a result, this is not a balanced hearing. this committee is charged with

conducting oversight of the federal government. as members of congress, we must exercise that authority in a responsible manner calling this kind of one-sided hearing and making false legal allegations, attacking the credibility of career federal employees falls well short of that standard. going forward i want to see us working together to conduct responsible oversight of the internal revenue service. with that i yield back. >> i would just point out that, first of all, ms. mitchell doesn't represent progressive groups because it sounds like, according to mr. sec low, they don't need it. they were seven for seven. >> i would urge you to have some come and testify and find out what they were asked. >> the minority had nine days' notice of this hearing. maybe you want to get one of the seven approved out of the seven that were put on some notice. what the minority did have time to do was to write me a letter urging me not to pursue having barbara bosser man come here and

answer our questions. you had time for that, but didn't have time to find someone to come testify? recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a lot more interested in having a balanced investigation than i am a balanced hearing. in that light, ms. engelbrecht, dipped you hear the president say there was not a smidgeon of corruption? >> i've heard he said. >> ms. garretson, did you hear the president say there was not a smidgeon of corruption? let me translate that. smidgeon is not a legal term. i assume he meant scintilla. i assume he meant criminality instead of corruption. how is he able to make that conclusion? none of you have been interviewed by the bureau, have you? >> no, sir. >> no. >> according to mr. sec low, of his 41 clients, three have been interviewed or three were asked to be interviewed. >> none interviewed yet. >> so zero of 41 have actually been interviewed. >> correct.

>> so the president says there's not a smidgeon of criminality or corruption. do either of you remember seeing a witness named lois lerner sitting at the very table y'all are sitting at? do you remember her invoking her fifth amendment privilege, the same privilege that she targeted some of your groups for trying to educate people about? some of your groups just want to simply educate people about the constitution, the one she availed herself of the very second she was exposed to criminal investigation. so how can the president say there's not a smidgeon of criminality when lois lerner invoked the fifth amendment, 41 witnesses haven't been interviewed including the two that are here right now? how can he possibly draw that conclusion? >> good question.

>> i wish one of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle would ask the president how in the world he concluded no criminality when lois lerner sat in front of them and invoked her privilege against criminality? how do you square that. >> mr. dowdy, if i may, she invoked her fifth amendment privilege which she has the right to do, and you and i respect that, because we know the reason why. it wasn't perhaps as clear as it was made yesterday. she invoked her fifth amendment privilege because she knew after she made a false statement in a planted question at an aba meeting, she knew that, in fact, there was her words and her e-mails off plan drafting of rules targeting conservative groups. she also said at a forum that people are asking us what we can do. she said i can't do anything until i see the 990s, the tax returns that are filed. that was all going on while she was redrafting the rules with

the highest level of the chief counsel's office. mr. cartwright -- >> mr. sec low, i want to say this. i understand why she invoked her fifth amendment privilege. i don't understand why the hell the president of the united states would prejudge an investigation. >> i don't either. >> before any of your clients were interviewed, before either of these two victims -- i know you don't like that word, but i'm using it in the criminal sense of the word, before either of these two victims were interviewed. he has gone on national television. he has prejudged the investigation and in my judgment has compromised the department of justice which leads me to this question, mr. sec low. there is the option, when you have a compromised investigation and a chief executive who has prejudged the outcome before the jury has even gotten all the evidence, he's got an option of appointing a special counsel, right? >> yes, he does. >> the special counsel regulation says if there's

extraordinary circumstances that furthers the public interest. can you think of anything more extraordinary than government targeting people based on their political beliefs? >> no. i agree with you 100%. i also would point to the -- again, the e-mail of june 14, 2012 which was just released. this shows the need for a special prosecutor at this point on the criminal aspect of this. again, mr. cartwright, when you asked about no evidence of politics, let me quote from the e-mail. don't know who in your organization is keeping tabs on c 4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them off plan in 2013 i've got nye radar up and this seemed interesting. these are coming from the most senior people within the chief counsel's office of the irs which is a presidential appointee. it's an office i came out of, so i have due respect for the office. at this point to investigate the criminal sanctions or criminal laws applicable i think would be the best way to go because i don't think the justice department right now again with due respect to the justice

department, is institutionally capable of doing this. and i need to say this, also, because i thought the question mr. cartwright on ms. mitchell's legal representation, she is has an exceptionally excellent reputation in this town. her clients tend to be conservative because that's who her clients tend to be. i'm a conservative, also. like i said, i've represented the american civil liberties union, the national democratic policy committee as well. i don't think it's fair to go after the lawyers in a situation where it is the irs that is trying to use their procedures to justify their illegal conduct. remember the apology? they offered the apology. the apology is not accepted. >> mr. chairman, in conclusion i believe the ranking subcommittee member said there are 13 people assigned to this investigation, if i heard correctly. 13 people in six months have not had time to interview a single

solitary one of mr. sec lowe's clients. 13 people in six months have not had time to interview either of these two witnesses, and yet the chief executive, the president of the united states has already prejudged the outcome of this investigation. so either it's on going or it's not. either he's wrong or eric holder is wrong. in either case, it is time for special counsel, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and through for this intriguing hearing. i will say at the outset my friend from south carolina for whom i have great regard, we don't agree on much, but we have mutual respect. but i will say it ought to trouble a tea party panel and a

lawyer who represented the aclu that this committee took upon itself a unique task in voting that a u.s. citizen, irrespective of her views or what you think she did or did not say, to protect herself against self incrimination, a very sacred principle, enshrined in the constitution of the united states. it was enshrined in there because of the experience of congress with the british. it's a very real right. this committee took upon itself, every member on that side, including my friend from south carolina voted unilaterally that she waived her fifth amendment right. if we can do that to her, we can do it to you. every one of us on this side of the aisle voted not to do that. irrespective of what one may decide on the substance of ms. lois lerner's behavior, testimony, whatever, we think

american citizens are entitled to constitutional protections and that the congress -- a committee of congress does not have unilateral ability to decide on its own that you waive that right. in listening to the testimony and the concerns here about a government that's over reaching, i would think you might be concerned about this committee over reaching. but it wasn't this side, ms. mitchell that did it. it wasn't this -- i'm not asking you a question. you made a statement. i'm making a statement. ms. engelbrecht, your written testimony states you believe various run-ins with the government were prompted by your application for a tax-exempt status with the irs. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> one of the federal agencies you mentioned is osha, occupational safety and health administration. you complain specifically in 2012 osha inspected your company engelbrecht manufacturing which manufactures metal products. you state osha found nothing

serious of significant and issued fines in excess of $20,000. is that correct? >> yes. >> osha's inspection report shows it identified ten violations at your manufacturing company, all of which are classified as serious. these violations included the failure to provide employees with appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to hazards, flying particles, molten metal, caustic aside, chemical gases or vapors . i'd ask that the inspection report go into the record at this point. >> without objection. >> is it your contention that those findings were politically motivated because of your seeking a tax-exempt status for another entity, that those violations, in fact, were trivial or non-serious in your view? >> when osha came to our shop,

they came under a false sic classification. they came with neither my husband nor i were there and proceeded to interview employees, and i would very much welcome everything that osha gave to us be included. the coverlet ter of osha clearly states they found nothing -- >> no, ma'am, i am going to control this questioning. i'm asking you a simple question. you're going to have a press conference later. you can speak to your heart's content there. i only have five minutes. were these or were these not in your view a serious matter? i thought your testimony said they were not serious. >> in my opinion and in the coverlet ter stated opinion of osha they were not serious. >> you complain that neither you or your husband were there. is it not the case that it's osha's practice not to give advance warning, that's the whole point of an inspection, to determine whether a facility is

safe, whether there are violations. to tell you we're coming next thursday is a heads up to give you a chance to clean up whatever might be a violation. isn't that their normal practice? >> sir, i don't know what the normal practice is. we complied as we did with every agency that came over these last three years. >> if it's your testimony now under oath you don't know their normal practice, how are you able, mon the less, to conclude it's politically motivated and has to do with your seeking a tax-exempt status as opposed to their normal practice to look at a manufacturing facility to make sure it's safe for the workers? >> because in the past three years, after nearly 20 years of being in business and no agency coming to visit with us, the succession of agencies that have now come to us for all manner of things begs the question, the statistical probabilities of what happened to me happening without political motivation is

staggering. >> i would just note for the record, ms. engelbrecht and mr. sec low because we're so concerned about the law and making sure there are no violations of the law, are you aware it's illegal for osha to give advance notice on inspections? that's actually a matter of law. >> i was not aware of that, but i'm not contending that they should have given us notice. i'm only observing -- >> be you complained about it. you complained you didn't get advance notice and you said you were concerned that neither your husband -- i understand the concern, but you understand they can't check in advance to see when you'd be there. >> nor did we try to do anything to discourage that process. >> i absolutely take that at face value. but it's a huge leap, given that, to conclude someone is out to get you, ms. engelbrecht, that there's any political motivation whatsoever with osha following its standard operating procedures. >> mr. connelly, you're aware the information from the irs --

>> mr. sec low, i have not asked a question. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. engelbrecht, in the first 20 years of visit did osha ever visit your place of business? >> no, sir. >> never once? >> no, sir. >> after you filed the application, osha visited then, right? >> yes, sir. >> and in the first 20 years of business, to the atf ever come to your business? >> no, sir. >> they came a couple times once you filed your application? >> yes, sir. >> and in your first 20 years of business, did the irs ever audit you? >> no, sir. >> once you filed your application, did they audit you? >> many times? >> in your first 20 years of business, did the fbi ever visit you? >> no, sir. >> once you filed your application, did they visit you? >> six times. >> mr. connelly wants ups all to believe that's a coincidence -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> i was just pointing out that

in 20 years of business osha never came to ms. engelbrecht's place of business. >> [ inaudible ]. >> yes, i was in 20 years of business osha never visited, fbi never visited. >> you can respond. i gave you plenty of extra time. i'll give you more. the gentleman is recognized for a minute. >> so where is the proof, though, other than you connecting dots that may or may not be connected that osha was politically motivated? >> i didn't say proof. i'm just saying you want us all to believe it's a coincidence. >> and you want us all to believe by innuendo there must be something wrong. >> 15 times in a two-year time frame, four different federal agencies visit her place of business, audit her personal and business records, and you expect us to believe that just -- >> i don't expect you to believe anything. you can believe whatever you choose to i didn't say that either. i believe in fact based,

empirical oversight, and innuendo and drawing conclusions and paranoia do not substitute for fact based empirical oversight. >> here are the facts. an affidavit for status and was visited by osha, fbi and audited by the irs. that happened. >> mr. chairman, i should say you should be hon the panel given your views. >> mr. chairman, will you yield your time for parliament yes? >> yielded. gentleman is recognized. >> can someone answer for me n the report referred to by mr. connelly and the osha report, the witness reached a negotiated agreement with osha and paid fines. >> this is a parliamentary inquiry.

>> it is. it's already in the record. my question is, is it true that the witness paid fines substantiating the serious allegations found in the report. >> i think that has been answered. >> no, i did not hear. will the witness answer the question? >> when you get recognized, which will be shortly, you can ask the question. i think the witness has answered it. if you want to ask again, i'm sure she'll do that. i want to recognize the gentleman from north carolina. mr. madison. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you started to respond to the gentleman from virginia by saying the cover letter. didn't mean to cut you off. go ahead. you can finish what you wanted to say in that cover letter. >> thank you. just is that the cover letter from osha made clear they found no serious or concerning findings. >> well, i want to apologize because what happens in these hearings quite frankly, is that

you've come to tell the story of a true american patriot. and then politics can be played, and i'm not making any assertions towards my colleagues. i'm just saying that it becomes very clear that it was extremely coincidental that all these federal agencies decided to visit your place of business after you took one particular action. and so i find that the probability of that happening extremely low. i do want to follow up, in your opening testimony, though, you made some assertions, and you mentioned the gentleman from maryland who is here, and i want to make sure that in that, that we don't do anything indirectly that would disparage a member of this house. you were saying that he targeted you. is that correct?

>> congressman cummings on three separate occasions sent letters on -- letterhead from this committee, stating that he had concerns and felt it necessary to open an investigation. yes. >> all right. so it was a -- it was correspondence as it relates to this committee, finding more facts as it relates to, you know, getting to the truth. >> yes. according to the letters he indicated that it was the consensus of this committee that we needed to be investigated. >> oh, he said you needed to be investigated? >> and that he was going to be the sell-appointed person to do that investigation of us. yes, sir.

so as we look at, miss mitchell, so the point of that is they were saying she should be investigated in what terms? >> the application was still pending at the time. and it became very involved and is the nation's leading organization, which tries to enforce election laws and ensure the integrity of elections. we have recruited hundreds and hundreds of volunteers across the country who volunteer to help preserve the integrity of elections in their communities and in their states. they challenge -- true the vote has filed lawsuits to encourage -- to force localities to comply with federal law and cleaning up voter roles among other things. congressman cummings took it upon himself and was not representing through the vote in

that particular proceeding, but there were a series of letter sent to true the vote from congressman cummings which reported to be on behalf of the committee, using the franken privilege, eaj which sought to delve into the inner workings of true the vote and the to make allegations about true the vote which were not true. demanding materials, demanding investigation, demanding that representatives make themselves available in washington. and frankly we think that's improper. we will deal with that in a different proceeding. but we also -- we also want to know whether there was any effort. we want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened. and we're going to try to figure out if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting true the vote on the radar screen of these federal agencies. we don't know that. but we're going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all

happen. >> did gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy which he just said is absolutely incorrect and not true. letters were sent out as the ranking member. i'm the ranking member of this committee. i did nothing different with what mr. issa has done with looking at situations. and i don't want to put out there that i was trying to act on behalf of the committee or anything unusual. we were basically looking into voting situations and whether voters were in any way, in any way being impeded from voting. i want to thank the gentleman. and we have the letters by the way. and chairman issa was sent copies of all the letters. it wasn't like we were hiding anything. >> and i thank the gentleman and certainly wanting to make sure that you have the opportunity. and so miss engelbreach.

the gentleman from one that i would let him follow up on that and give him the yield in terms of following him to assure you that near he nor his staff nor anyone would have contacted the irs to investigate you and to do that. so i yield to the gentleman and let him give you those. >> i can assure you. and i want to thank the gentleman for that. there is no one that i know of that can care more about the rights of our citizens than i do. and i'm sure all of us do. but just as you all have a passion, and i respect that, i too have a passion to make sure that no one, i don't care if

it's tea party, republican or democrat, nobody is blocked from voting. there's no way that i would be sitting here today, no way, unless it was for -- unless we had fair voting in this nation. my 88-year-old mother who is probably watching us right now could not vote. and the last thing i said, ma, one of the things she said to me, i do not want to die with a thought that my peep are losing their right to vote. and so i got to tell you, i want to thank the gentleman, because i want that to be clear. and i will fight until i die -- until i die -- for the right to vote, because it's not about me. it's about generations yet unborn and their rights. and just like you all care about irs not doing the things that you feel they did. i feel the same way. i don't want the irs targeting anybody. but at the same time, i have the

same passion about that right to vote. and again, i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i want the gentleman to be able to assure her that -- and i'll let him speak to this -- that he did not direct his staff nor anybody at the irs to investigate you and look into this particular manner. >> i can assure you of ha. >> i thank the gentleman f i thank the chairman for his patience. >> i really do thank the gentleman for that opportunity. >> gentle lady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am looking at a letter from the u.s. department of justice in response to your letter and chairman issa's letter requesting information pertaining to an ongoing investigation. i don't know if this is in the record or not. but for it to be enter into the record, is there a response for

your request? >> this is a response from deputy cole. >> from assistant director steven kelly. to your letter and mr. issa's lette letter. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> like all americans i was outraged to learn of the targeting by the irs of both conservative and progressive groups. this type of political targeting by a government agency that is supposed to have the public's trust is completely unacceptable. i certainly understand the emotion and passion of the witnesses. as members of congress, particularly members of this committee we have a duty to look into this type of wrongdoing and mismanagement that occurred at the irs. we also have to learn from mistakes and put processes in place to make sure that they never happen again ch and i think this is something all my colleagues on this panel are committed to doing. the department of justice is

also investigating to determine if any laws were broken. i think it's completely inappropriate to apply the witnesses with a platform to unfairly attack the ranking member of the full committee. like any member of this committee he has the authority and one would say the moral obligation to conduct investigations into serious concerns raised to his attention. in this race the ranking member requested documents to investigate serious public allegations of voter disenfranchisement. he wrote letters laying out the allegations. he cited the sources for his information, and he asked true the vote to provide documents to either prove or disprove these allegations. mr. cummings' actions were no different than those of congressman issa when he served as this committee's ranking member and representative issa sent letters after letter in his similar documents for request from all kinds of government and private entities. i would expect you and every

other member of the committee to seek information requesting documents regardless of party information. it's no surprise that the group the ranking member has been investigating should lash out against him. what is surprising is they would suggest the fbi's actions as potential illegal activity. and what is so astonishing to me is you would give them a public forum to do so. the false and outrageous allegations against mr. cummings who was given written testimony and posted on the committee's website. you knew this was coming and you allowed it to happen. earlier today mr. cummings wrote a letter to this the board of the office of congressional ethics easily debunking these claims and providing full copies of all of his correspondence with true the vote. he also made all them available to the public on the committee website. i ask his letter be made part of the hearing record today, and i regret our committee would allow itself to use such a blatant

political stunt. >> without objection. >> thank you. i want to sort of touch back. as someone who has a large number of manufacturers in my district. i am very, very concerned for us small business owners. you are a small bitz owner. i congratulate you on that. they're the engine of our economy, b evan during the recession. it's the only part of the economy that continued to grow. you employed 30 plus employees with a good living so they could take care of their families. just answer yes or no. am i correct in saying that you are in the business of manufacturing heavy manufacturing parts for oil drilling and the like? is that correct? >> we're a high precision machine shop. we make small component parts. >> you make small component parts. you use things like milling machinery and that type of thing. >> computer itzed machinery, yes, ma'am. >> i have quite a few of those in my district. i am twa actually somewhat

worried that osha had not inspected you in 20 years. i would think that osha should be inspecting any manufacturing business on a regular basis and that we would not go a whole 20 years without ever inspecting the health and safety environment for employees, and i personally, i know that you don't think the allegations of not providing eye protection and the like is not a serious concern, but as someone who has been around a lot of heavy manufacturing, let me just say that it is a concern and i'm out of time. i yield back. >> in the 20 years prior to osha coming the there, did you ever have anyone with any serious injury at your place of business? >> no, sir. and to be clear on the eyewear point, we do absolutely require eyewear to be worn. they just weren't happy with the kind. >> someone probably forgot to put their goggles on one day,

right? >> well, forgot to put the goggles on. they identified an entry point they thought was an exit, which cost i don't know, $4,300, if memory serves. something like that. >> young. we've all had businesses in the district have osha show up and find they put a box in the aisleway they forgot to ref move. >> thank you, chairman. i certainly appreciate you being here today and reflecting on the past three years in the committee. i know a lot of politically charged issues get brought forth, but listening to the testimony today really makes you think about what being an american means, what it should mean, and we can try to divert into questions about osha and other violations. but what i heard was very two very impassionate testimonies from two american who is want to testify their freedom to publicly speak about their preferences of election. we can sit and try to pretend that this didn't happen. we can go back and look at the

statements. we can go back to may of 2012 when the irs internal investigator said there was substantial inappropriate bias going on. we can go to when mr. miller had his epiphany that this was going on. we can go to when the president said this was inexcusable and intolerable. eric holder, the same thing. so there's no question that this happened. we can't sit up here as democrats and republicans and deny that the irs did not target people. they did. they apologized. there's been hearings. miss learner came in here, took the fifth, and mr. seclo talked about that earlier. maybe we can talk about it again. but this is about our rights as americans. that's why we're here today. i would like to think that the people on the the other side of the aisle as well as the people on this side would equally listen to occupy wall street or liberal groups that were targeted by a republican president. it's about the federal government using their power to

suppress our rights as americans, and that's wrong inny part, in any language. we're not a third world country, i hope. we're not a country that's run by a dictator that fixes elections. sadly we won't know what the outcome of the last election would have been had this targeting not taken place. we'll never know that. we don't know if the election would have been altered if we weren't misled by the youtube video about benghazi. we won't know that. there's a lot of things that were done before the election that now that it's over, people are saying now we have to clean up the mess. let's pay attention to this irs scandal. this targeting. and that happened. it didn't happen very long. because in july during an economic address at knox college in galesberg, the president turned it into endless display of attractions. i thought we were past that.

we're here to make sure you all get a fair chance and a fair response to your questions. so we have attorneys here representing the clients. have they got that chance yet? >> no. they have not. i mean, i represent many groups, and i talk to many groups. there's a particular group tea party patriots. they host a sunday night conference call every sunday night with grass roots groups from across tb country. literally hundreds of people who talk about things like what are some positive alternatives to the affordable care act? and they hear speakers, and they are trying to educate themselvesst about issues. so in turn people in their groups can learn about what congress is doing and have an impact on public policy. many are the very same groups that were targeted. that were treated and couldn't to be treated in a terrible

manner. and now is proposing to essentially silence permanently. none of them have been interviewed by the fbi to hear the stories of what they went through. and katherine's case and true the vote's case when it got its -- i want to say third round of questions for the irs about two years ago this month, there were 102 questions when you take into consideration the sub parts and the sub part's sub questions. this a longdoing time. i have never seen anything like it. i knew something was going on. and to say that it was boneheaded mistakes is to treat all of these people with other contempt and disrespect and to deny what they have been through and what they are still going

through. i would implore the democratic members of the committee and of the congress did not fall in somethingry to defend that is indefensible and to treat this as him kind of partisan ballgame. we had this one brief moment last summer when democrats and republicans came together and congress was intent on doing its oversight duty, and the media was intent on exposing wrongdoing, even in this administration. somehow that dissipated with that speech your for two. referred to, and i find it very distressing. >> i thank the gentleman. ranking member of the full committee. chairman is recognized. thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, we have interviewed a

whole lot of people. and perhaps there's still more to be done. and again i want to em phasize that the members on this side of the aisle are just as concerned about every single taxpayer being treated fairly. and so we've seen that. we've listened and we've seen the testimony. and so we've just -- and i'm sure we will -- if there are things to be corrected. a lot of things have already been corrected based on the ig's report. so i just want you to be assured that we care about those issues, too. you know, we have constituents who we want to make sure are treated fairly, too, no matter who they are. no matter who they are. i want to make that clear. i also want to go back to mr.

meadows. i want to thank you again for yielding. he's right. there's no targeting over here. we're trying to figure out, make sure that no one was unfairly being impeded from voting. and it's a very serious matter for me. but the letters that i sent you, some of them concerned a report. and the institute for research and education on human rights issued that report in 2012. and their report examined your organizational activities in north carolina, particularly with respect to where the pole watchers were placed. the reports said the poll watchers, and this is the report, whether we are trying to figure out if it was true or not. and it said go to the polls on election day and aggressively challenge the registration or eligibility of voters.

according to the report, your volunteers were concentrated in counties in north carolina that have high percentages of african-american and latino populations. i want to ask you about this particular information in the report. first of the 25 counties in north carolina, with the highest african-american population. the report says that true the vote and volunteers were sent to volunteers. is that accurate? >> i don't know. all true the vote does is provide training. the way our elections work, citizens will choose the candidate or party of their choice. but true the vote has no control over where citizens end up ultimately working. >> and the report went onto say that true the vote had poll watchers in nine of ten counties with the highest latino

population. you wouldn't have that information either then. >> we have training. we cannot place volunteers inside of the polls. therefore that report is fundamentally flawed. >> by contrast, according to that vote, true the vote had 4 of 25 counties with the e lowest latino population. assume your answer would be the same for that. is that right? >> it would seem to me that a volunteer would be sent where there are volunteer needs. >> all right. and who determines those needs? >> the party or the candidate that the citizen chooses to work on behalf of or in some cases the county when they need volunteers sufficient to keep polling places open. >> the report says you had only two volunteers covering all of the ten counties with the fewest african-american citizens. >> we had no volunteers covering any county we provide training, congressman. >> now if the numbers in the report are correct, they indicate that poll watchers were

concentrated in counties where there were more nirnts. it looks like you're targeting voters. . you wouldn't want that. i know you're saying that different happen. but that's definitely not what you would want. >> no, the mission of true to vote is to make sure that every american citizen has the opportunity to participate, unimpeded in elections that are free and fair. >> and on october 29th, your attorney wrote a letter saying this, and i quote, we operate completely in the open. with anyone and everyone available to see what we do, when we do it. is that true? >> absolutely. >> and so, you know, obviously i hear what you're saying, but you can understand that when we get a report like that we alrea-- id

think republicans and democrats would be concerned about those kinds of allegations because those are the things that go to the fundamentals of this country, this right to vote. you made it clear you don't impede people from voting. is that right? >> no, sir. >> very well. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. miss engelbrecht deep down, deep down why do you think you had 15 visits from four federal agencies in a two-year time frame after you applied? deep down, why do you think you were targeted? >> i think i was targeted because of my political beliefs. >> because of your conservative political beliefs. you know, though, i think it's bigger. my guess is you were targeted because of your political beliefs x yes, but also because you were effective. it was working, right? true the vote was having an impact. you were cleaning up voter roles, right?

you were educating people about ho we should have free and fair, honest elections. you were praised by attorney generals all over the country. secretaries of state. i'm looking at this -- i mean, i'm looking at -- you even had an outreach program to hispanic americans is that correct? >> absolutely. >> they targeted you because it was working. they said we can't have this. here's a conservative who is making an impact. that's why you were targeted. and all while this is going on the president is saying things, after citizens united, the president is making all kinds of statements. he says things like we got shadowy groups getting involved in elections. this is august 21st 2010. attack ads run by shadowy groups. foreign corporations could be involved. this is a problem for democracy. a threat to our democracy. miss garrison, you haven't talked much. let me ask you this. is the tea party a shadowy group? >> no. >> you're not secret, are you? >> no. >> everyone knows who you are

down at home, right? >> that's right. >> you don't have any foreign corporations helping you out, do you? >> no, we don't even have any corporate money. >> are you trying to threaten democracy? >> no. >> you're trying to promote democracy, right? just like what miss engelbrecht is doing. are you a problem for the democracy? of course not. and yet you were targeted. and in miss engelbrecht's case, four federal agencies in a couple year time frame. none had any interaction with them before. but she files for tax exempt status and she's having an impact and you're having an impact and suddenly the president is making all these statements and here comes the full weight of the federal government down on two ladies exercising their constitutional first amendment political speech right. and the minority says we shouldn't have this hearing. let me tell your story. and the minority tells us we

shouldn't have barbara boxer man come in here, who is head of the investigation, and won't give us the idea of who is heading it up. they haven't talked to you. one of the many questions that your clients and miss mitchell's clients got -- i'm just going to read one. but there are all kinds of questions. political groups got involved, too. so they asked all these questions. one of the questions was, do you have a relationship with any candidate for public office. >> right. >> now think about this. they're asking miss garrison. >> right. >> miss engelbrecht and a boat load of other people across the country if they have a connection. but the person investigating this target has a connection with the most powerful individual in this country, less than one-tenth of 1% of the american people give maxed out contributions to a political candidate. that's who is heading the

investigation. if that's not irony, i don't know what is. >> it's not only irony. in our view, and i say this guess with no disrepresent to miss basserman. it raises serious ethical concerns that she may have well brought up and they chose to ignore. but you look at the scope of questions that were asked, way outside of general inquiry. incredible. >> i've looked at it. >> and you look at cases, there's a whole host of them, because what was happening in those cases is exactly what was happening here. government agencies were targeting grouping to try to intimidate them into silence, in those particular cases at the naacp by saying things like we would like to see your membership list. who do you talk to? this has been going on since 1950. it didn't work out too good for the state of alabama when they tried that to the naacp. >> i just have one other question for you. we're going to have to recess

and go vote. this is all going on. you're an individual who is represented, as you pointed out, to the minority, represented the american civil liberties union. you've represented democrats. you've been in the supreme court. you've seen all kinds of things throughout history. i want to know, do you think this changed the impact of the 2012 presidential election? >> i think there's evidence american enterprise institute and others have put forward evidence that the groups being intimidated were it ian not recognized had a significant impact on the election. it's very well possible. >> i understand. >> very well possible that the 2012 election was impacted by an aggressive intimidation factor by the irs with application still pending, mr. chairman, for three years. >> mr. chairman, may i ask, you're going to recess before

the vote? we have 15 minutes before -- >> you want to go is what you're say sng. >> i think, yes. >> all right. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and then we'll have to recess then and go back. it's unfortunate that our ranking member mr. cummings was attacked in this areaing and that the chairman provided an opportunity for two witnesses to be given a platform to do that. we've never done that when the chairman of this committee has called for in his -- >> would gentleman yield -- >> no, i will not. i have five minutes. no, i will not yield, mr. chairman. i have five minutes. >> i'm the chairman. let me say one thing. >> it's my time, mr. chairman. i have five minutes. >> the gentleman just asked me -- >> i have questions for the

witness. >> i can recess if you want. i would rather you yield me 30 seconds. i was going to make a point about the mr. cummings issue. does gentleman yield? >> for the purpose of responding to why the ranking member was attacked. >> i don't think the ranking member was attacked. but i instructed our staff a couple of days ago to encourage miss engelbrecht and miss mitchell not to proceed with the ethics complaint. i further talked to them this morning not to proceed in that matter. we want the folks of this hearing to be the fact that these individuals were systematically harassed by their government. that's what the focus is. you guys keep wanting to bring this issue up. i've encouraged them not to pursue that. gentleman is recognized. >> i don't know how in one breath you encourage them not to do it and in the next breath give them the platform to do it. let me go to my question. >> because in three years they've been targeted by four -- >> i agree with the fact that groups, whether they're tea

party groups, the naacp or green peace have been targeted by the irs. >> that's not the fact. that's not the fact. >> there's no disputing the fact that there was wrongdoing, and there's no disputing that we should be working to fix that. but that's not what happened here today. what happened here today was an ongoing theatrics to continue the partisanship about relitigating an election that is over. now the question that i have, and the question that i want to represent is, i'm not here as a democrat. i'm here as a representative of the constituents of nevada's fourth that elected me to serve them. whether they are democrats, republicans, independents or nonpartisans. i have tea party constituents in my district, and i respect their

right, as i respect any other constituent. and i am not here to push an agenda, but to get to the facts. and so i am deeply concerned about what has transpired, and i want to fix it. but that's never what this committee ever gets to. because we spend more time attacking our own members. but regardless of which party holds power, it's unacceptable, it needs to stop and we need to fix it. one way we should be working to fix it is by addressing the inconsistency of the regulation for how 501 c 4s are treated to begin with. and according to statute, if they engage exclusively on social welfare activities, they may qualify for 501c4 status. however, it's not how it has been applied in that way that

has allowed organizations to engage in some political activity, as long as it's not the primary activity of that organization. so in my opinion, political acttivity should be stricted based on the statute, and we should completely prohibit any 501c4 from making monetary or contributions to political action committees or any other entity engaged in campaign activity. if we were able to get to that point there wouldn't be this ambiguity to begin with. now we've heard issues where unfortunately some of the groups who were in -- who were reviewed may not have been following this standard. miss engelbrecht your group true

the vote, on your website it says one of the top goals was to trim the early voting period. is that right? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to. >> on your website. it indicates -- are you guys against early voting? do you oppose early voting in states? >> no, absolutely not. however, there are states that have months of early voting, and i think that could be looked at for a number of reasons, yes. >> but on your website, it does not say trim the early voting period? i have a copy of your website, i mean, it's -- >> taken in that context, it may say, in fact, but for the record, early voting is an important part of the process. i think there's value in determining whether or not a month before the election day early voting is really necessary. >> well, during the 2012

election we saw lines stretching so long many people couldn't get to vote and many people were discouraged, and from that president obama commissioned a bipartisan commission at the head of his election and the head of mitt romney's election working in a bipartisan way to come up with recommendations, and their conclusion was that we actually need to expand early voting to help voters. would you agree that that should be an approach that should be taken based on the recommendations of that commission? >> i guess i'm con futzed about why we would want to try this at this point in this hearing. in any case, i certainly respect the findings of the commission. our election process is deserving of a hearing unto itself. >> thank you. i'll conclude by just asking if you would respond to the request

by the ranking member on the statistics around where people were placed, particularly in the north carolina voting. will you provide that information to the committee as it was previously requested? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i have a question for miss -- >> i'm glad to respond. >> go ahead. >> the response is i can't do that. >> exactly. >> we do not place poll watchers. that was the fundamental misunderstanding that i tried to communicate to the ranking member when i asked to visit with him. >> people are allowed to go where they want to go in america still. they can't say everything they want to say because the irs will go after them. >> they can always take the fifth. >> we have to recess. there's restroom facilities you can get to. we'll be back in approximately 30 minutes.

recess, wers took a have been asking you to weigh in with your thoughts. george writes -- from gail -- more now from this hearing on alleged irs targeting of

conservative groups. representatives several groups say they were singled out to testify. the justice department attorney failed to appear at the hearing. >> so these -- these have been in place for more than half a century. the committee will be in order. i want to thank y'all for being here. what you've been through is something that is just -- well, look, we appreciate your

courage. we appreciate your willingness to come here and take some of the questions you had to take. we appreciate it. i'll recognize the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get to my questions, i see my colleagues aren't over here on the other side of the aisle because i think it would be nice to see the application of us grilling the tide foundation in the same place that you are. a wonderful conversation, i think. but thank you very much, mr. chairman, for the opportunity. this is a serious issue in which the executive branch has abused its powers for political gain. my constituents in arizona are mortified and angry. congress must ensure that the investigation and the targets of these groups is being conducted in a thorough, timely, and appropriate fashion. so i'm going to ask some questions very quickly to each of the witnesses. i have a few to get through, so if you can keep it concise, i think it will be pretty self-explanatory.

would the witnesses agree that the administration and the enforcement of the law should be done impartially and without regard to political affiliation? >> absolutely. the constitution requires it. i agree. >> yes, sir. >> so real justice should be blind. >> absolutely. >> do the witnesses recall president obama and eric holder expressing their supposed outrage that the irs would target organizations that do not share their political views? >> yes. >> may 15th. >> do you happen to share in their outrage? >> absolutely. >> so do i. and so i do find it terribly ironic that the president and the attorney general expressed such an apparent outrage over this type of behavior, only later to assign the task to an investigator that is biased toward the administration. one of the lead investigators donated nearly $7 thousa,000.

i do not believe she is the best fit to lead in this investigation and could potentially embarrass her party or the man she wanted to be president. some might say the department of justice agrees and ms. bosserman leading the investigation is appropriate. the answer to the question is they refused outright. doj officials made the claim that making ms. bosserman available was tantamount to the targeting of a federal employee. the use of the word targeting was not incidental. the doj was attempting to draw similarities between the irs targeting of conservative groups. to make such an assertion is to imply that the oversight inquiries are inherently partisan and therefore the administration can and should refuse to provide witnesses to answer questions when called upon. so i ask you, witnesses. would you agree with that

assessme assessment? >> that they -- yes. that they were targeting? >> yes. >> yes, they're targeting. they certainly targeted many, many of our clients. >> but they're also trying to utilize it like we on this committee are actually targeting federal employees. you can see a very strong -- >> they've twisted the statute. they twisted the term. >> it's actually what they're doing is conflating two issues. one is the irs engaged in a systemic target, acknowledged systemic targeting. the selection of the department of justice attorney to head the investigation, they're trying to turn the targeting because we raised the concern of bias, which, of course, as a defense council, or as the plaintiff in a lawsuit, and there's a federal investigation, of course we're going to bring that up. so they're trying to turn what is an obligation of a lawyer to not have the appearance of impropriety, and they're trying to turn that as individuals on this committee targeting this lawyer, which has never been

anybody's -- >> i agree with you. let me switch gears for a minute. you just took me right where i wanted to be. do the witnesses happen to know whether it is legal or illegal for an irs employee to target groups based on political affiliation or ideology. >> they acknowledged it, congressman, as you know. the irs -- this is not a case where we're trying to figure out what the irs did. they have said affirmatively, we targeted, by name. we created a be on the lookout list. and they said we were wrong, that was inkwekt, and "we apologize." that's what lois learner said. >> the former commissioner and irs, he said it's absolutely not illegal. he made those very comments. >> i argued this case with the supreme court of the united states dealing with viewpoint discrimination. all nine justices said it was illegal. >> well, that's why we have to rephrase the bureaucracy. i actually put a bill called the irs anti-abuse act which would

codify political affiliation or ideology as a protected class in the irs code. it also expressly prohibits an employee from being threatened to audit an individual or group for politically motivated reasons. is it your recommendation that such a provision should become law. >> i think so. i think right now the irs is institutionally incapable of that, sir. >> congressman, i would like to add that i just received a text a moment ago in the recess from a person who said, i built a website for our local tea party group and now i've been audited by the irs. i've heard stories from people all over the country about having for the first time in their lives become somewhat politically active or active in advocacy activities and suddenly they've been audited or their business has been audited. i just have to think that this cannot be coincidental. and somebody needs to be doing the statistical analysis of

those who have been selected for audit over the past four years. >> absolutely. i want to close real quickly, sir, with your indulgence. i would close by noting that the irs commissioner has now approved $62.5 million in bonuses to the irs employees for their work in 2013 to boost their morale. how absurd. i would say that those millions might be best used at the irs for ethical training and boost awareness of the united states constitution. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from arizona and will go to the gentleman from michigan. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. thank you, and thank you distinguished members of the subcommittee and those testifying before us today. thank you very much. we appreciate hearing all those stories from our witnesses and it's awful what has happened to you. in hearing you and your testimony, i notice from my own district, it appears that the

president has a war on the constitution. i always believed the irs was supposed to be objective. and treat everybody equally. under this administration and irs, i guess some groups are more equal than others. it has almost been nine months since this has been made public, and we are no further along than when the initial report was released. instead, we get typical washington double talk, sidestepping the issue, happy talk, and verbal moon walking. these individuals testifying before us today deserve to have action taken. we need to hold this administration and the irs accountable and i'm committed to making that happen. in the hearing that was held in may of 2013, i asked mr. schulman of the irs numerous questions about the constitution of the bill of rights. i asked if the irs agents take classes on the bill of rights and they didn't know. mr. schulman is a lawyer and i asked him if he knew the first,

second, and 19th amendments. he told me he didn't have the constitution memorized. that's pretty bad. i'm guessing you are all familiar with the constitution and the bill of rights. can you tell me what the first amendment is? >> the first amendment gives us freedom of religion and freedom of speech. >> and a few others. >> how about second amendment? >> right to keep and bear arms. >> 19th amendment? >> gave women the right to vote. >> do you think irs agents should have to take training on the constitution in the bill of rights? >> absolutely. >> i want to ask you about a tea party. i am a member of the tea party, but i can't really say that because i've never filled out an application to join a tea party. is that something, you have to fill out an application to join the tea party? >> tea party is a frame of mind. >> thaerlt's right.

you just show up, if you agree with it, you can join in the conversation, learn more, or just leave. >> that's correct. >> to address some grievances and ask some questions. because i think if you're like me, you felt something was wrong. if something was wrong in washington, but you couldn't really put your finger on it. is that a correct assumption? >> that's absolutely the correct assumption. and i assume that we could ask questions. >> that's right, you can. and as a former teacher, kids would come in and ask questions. i tried to answer those questions as best i could. and if i didn't know the answer, i'll try to get the answer. is that pretty much what you're doing? >> that's what i'm trying to do. >> right. i understand. in civics class. >> i remember. >> kids from all backgrounds.

you have an obligation to get involved in what's going on in the world. did you ever hear something like that, or words to that effect? >> that's how i was raised. >> that's how you were raised, that's how i was raised and so many other americans. and now that you're doing that, the government, the irs, osha, and i have no doubt because i've experienced it myself, when teachers found out i was running for office with an r after my name, suddenly couldn't do anything right. never got a complaint, and all of a sudden i'm a conservative. i have a great belief that this country, the greatest -- well, that this country -- how can i say this. the greatest thing about this country is our cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. and, you know, i believe the other side agrees with that, too. unless, of course, you have an r or you're a conservative after your name. would you agree with that

assumption? >> i think it's a correct assumption that the best thing about this country is its people. maybe we've lost our way for a little bit. but we're finding it back. >> god bless you. thank you for what you're doing. i just want you to know my office has a door that's always open and you're always welcome, as is anybody else. feel free to stop in any time. thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. god bless you're welcome all of you. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan and i go now to the gentleman and friend from texas. >> thank you for letting me set on the committee today. i have some questions for you, so short answers will work okay. after you started, were you visited by the fbi? >> yes, sir. >> were you visited by the fbi terrorist squad? whatever they call themselves to investigate terrorists. >> yes, sir. >> how many times did you have

either meetings or conversations with the fbi? >> there were six inquiries. >> were you visited by osha? >> yes, sir. >> how many times? >> once. >> the atf? >> yes, sir. >> how many times were you visited or audited by the atf? >> twice. >> and you were also visited by the texas commission on environmental quality? >> yes, sir. >> the state agency of the epa, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> the irs, how many times? >> two personal audits, two business audits. >> at some point, did you believe you were under some criminal investigation? >> at some point, i didn't quite know what to think. >> did you come to me and ask if you were being investigated criminally? >> yes, sir, i did. >> and we got a response from the fbi. >> yes, we did. >> and they said what? >> that they were not. >> they were not investigating you for criminal enterprise. to your knowledge. >> correct. >> do you think -- well, let me

ask you this. were you at any time after you started these two groups harassed by so called liberal or progressive groups? >> yes, sir. on a very regular basis. >> what does that mean harassed? >> well, that can mean many things, but speaking falsehoods, bearing false witness, trying to take something like election integrity and turn it into something that divides us instead of unites us. >> and in your opinion, were you harassed by legislators? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that there should be a special prosecutor to investigate the irs? >> yes, sir. >> in 2013 on may 14th, i sent eric holder a letter. are you aware of the letter that i sent him asking for a special prosecutor and asking a bunch of questions about the irs? >> yes, sir, i am. >> i have not received a response from eric holder on it.

have you received a response? >> no, sir. >> were you asked by the fbi or the irs, rather, to produce all of the tweets that you ever tweeted? >> yes, sir. >> facebook posts? >> yes, sir. >> did you comply with that? >> i don't do facebook or twitter. >> the irs, they wanted to know all the places that you spoke publicly. >> yes, sir. >> did they want copies of your speeches? >> yes, sir. >> get this correct. the federal government wanted a copy of a citizen's speech in a public forum. >> yes, sir. >> did they want to know where you were going to speak in the future? >> yes, sir. >> did they want to know the names of the groups you spoke to? >> yes, sir. >> did they want the mailing list or the attendee list of the people that were in attendance at the places that you spoke? >> yes, sir. >> they wanted the speech, they wanted to know where it was, they wanted to know what you

said, they wanted to know who was there. >> yes, sir. >> do you find that a little oppressive? >> i find it highly -- >> do you think that the united states constitution lets the federal government swoop in and take away the right of free speech by demanding all of this information? >> it's not what the constitution was built to do. >> i had a chance to be in the soviet union back in the '80s. the people were totally oppressed by government. they were afraid of government. they were afraid to say anything or write anything about government. because government would punish them. take their jobs. put them in jail. harass them. take their money. all of those things. did you ever think that we would

see in the united states of america a government through its agencies, the irs, the fbi, osha, epa, atf, take on a citizen trying to keep you from criticizing government? did you ever think that you would see that in this country? >> no, sir, i never thought -- i never thought that i would see that, but i do see it, it is happening, and i hope that the american public sees this for what it is. >> the gentlewoman will suspend. the chairman is responsible under the rules of the house and the rules of this committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the room, so we ask everybody to abide by that. go ahead. >> i didn't hear your answer, i'm sorry. >> my answer was no, i never believed that this could happen, and for many years, i didn't want to believe by all appearances what seemed to be happening was, in fact, happening. and it is my hope now that we

don't gloss over these moments, that we see them in their fullness for what they are, because it threatens to undermine the very fabric of this republic, sir. >> did you ever think that the things that i have mentioned, that has happened to you, did you ever as an american think that you would see government swoop down and punish you for exercising the right to criticize? >> absolutely not. >> how does that make you feel as an american citizen? >> angry. >> and you testified that you don't think we're doing enough to solve this oppression. >> correct. >> lastly, if i may, mr. chairman, my grandmother, who was my most influential person, a democrat, by the way, for my friends over there, used to say there is nothing more powerful than a woman that has made up her mind. [ laughter ]

i think we have two of those, three of those women right here today. thank you for being here. thank you for your fight. because, you see, america is worth fighting for. >> amen. >> and i yield back. >> i thank you. i walked in right at the end of that, but it sounds like a great presentation. i call it moms on a mission. look out. good things are going to happen. so i echo what the gentleman from texas had to say. mr. cartwright? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i have sat through today's hearing and first of all, i want to say i appreciate all of you coming. your viewpoint is appreciated. understood. i wish we had opposing viewpoints today for a fuller discussion, but that doesn't discount the value of your viewpoint. one thing i wanted the raise was

i think one or of you have brought up the idea that people have said that there's no evidence of wrongdoing at the irs. there's no evidence of corruption or however you want to say it. and that that is inappropriate because the investigation is ongoing. which one of you said something like that? >> i did. >> professor -- >> mr. j is fine. >> it's a good point. it's something that we hear both ways. we as americans are used to tv reporters putting microphones in prosecutors' faces and investigators' faces, police chiefs' faces, asking for details of an investigation, and what is the phrase that they all intone always? i can't comment on an ongoing investigation. and as americans, we understand that because you can prejudice

an investigation if you release details, if you give up clues, if you can let guilty people off the hook if you do that, if you comment on ongoing investigations. so i think we as americans understand that. but i think it works both ways, doesn't it? before you impugn an investigation, before you condemn an investigation for using shoddy practices or unfair viewpoints or whatever it is, before you attack an investigation, by the same token, you want to wait until the end of it to see how it comes out. and to that point, i want to ask, do any of you have the information that this investigation is over, that it is complete at this point? if you do, weigh in. >> let me say from my perspective, because we've been

involved in since its outset. with regard to the investigation, two aspects. there is an ongoing department of justice investigation and, of course, you have the committee's investigation on the department of justice investigation, i think it's important to point this out. the wrongdoing by the irs as acknowledged by the internal revenue service. for that reason, it's a different than a situation where you're trying to determine if in fact there was wrongdoing. here it was acknowledged by the irs. they offered the apology for it but they acknowledged they did inappropriate targeting. that's number one. >> i want to say the, professor sekulow, we on then entire committee on both sides, we're in a high state of outrage when we first found out about it. >> yes. >> but the answer is that no, we have not heard from the justice department that them are complete in their investigation and i want to make the point that maybe, just maybe it would make sense for all of us as americans to step back and let

them do their work before they attack, before we attack their methods or their conclusions. i only have limited time. >> i understand. the second point i wanted to make was there have been references to ms. bosserman, barbara k. bosserman who was invited but didn't come today. it is high lie irregular. it's really unprecedented to haul an investigator in before a congressional complete in the middle of an investigation for the very same reasons i just discussed because it can be prejudice an investigation because it can really foul it up. and theaters why we don't do that. but some of you, one or more of you have said that ms. bosserman was leading the investigation. and i wonder, is any of it you privy to who's leading the investigation? because attorney general holder

testified i believe it was in the ways and means committee -- no, i believe in the senate, he testified that ms. bosserman is not, in fact, leading that investigation. so if one or more of you is privy to information that she is, in fact, the lead on this investigation, now is the time to share your information with us. >> let me do that to clarify this for you, congressman. our office and i believe we're the only ones so far had a conversation with the department of justice, the highest ranking official on that call was miss bosserman. i want to be very clear and i appreciate you giving them a moment to do this. we are not disparaging her credentials at all. it's raised significant issues but i also think it's important to point out that with regard to her relationship within the department of justice, she's a junior official in the department of justice and the highest ranking member of the department of justice that we work with. >> you suspect that she may be in the lead of they investigation? >> we were teld she is.

>> the truth of the matter is that you don't know and in fact, attorney general eric holder has said that she is not. so do you really mean to come in and say the attorney general of the united states is a liar? >> with due respect no one has called the attorney general of the united states is a liar. we have been told that the highest ranking official at the department of justice is miss bosserman. that is what we've been told by the department of justice. >> mr. sekulow and mr. karth wright, didn't say that she was not the head of the investigation. >> he did not know her is what he said. >> he said she's part of the team, but mr. sekulow said she's the highest ranking official part of the team which would lead one to believe she's heading the investigation. plus we have what took place in practice. people we have interviewed, the committee staff has interviewed which your minority staff was in those same interviews told us the person asking them the questions when justice department interviewed them was barbara bosserman. >> correct. >> so any logical person, anyone

with a brain can figure out she's heading the investigation. the only one that won't admit that is the attorney general. and the democrat members of this committee. anyone can figure that out. of course, she's heading the investigation and oh, by the way, and this is the underlying point, she gave $6,0002750 to the president and the democrat national committee and she should have recused herself by the plain language of the ethics rules in the justice department. and you can defend her and you can accepted me a letter and say she shouldn't come here. don't subpoena her, don't bring her in to answer the questions. you can do all that and you can always say no liberal groups were invited. i would ask you, tell me one liberal group you wanted to invite. >> let me back up. >> do you have a name of a liberal group you want to invite? tell me one liberal group you want to invite here. i want point to 41 that mr. sekulow knows. i can point to the tea party in the alabama. tell me one you can point to. >> your opinion is well taken.

the opinions of the testifying it witnesses are well taken. but that's what they are. they're opinions about who is leading this investigation and we here in the oversight and government reform committee believe in dealing in facts. give back my time. >> congressman, it's a serious charge. we've been told, maybe you know something i don't. we've been told she is the lead for the department of justice on these investigations, including not just with witnesses we may produce but that you all have produced. maybe they've told you something we don't know. also i would add the point. you talk about prejunging an investigation, the president of the united states said not one smidgeon of corruption. it's very difficult. >> that's what i said leading into it. it's fair to criticize him for that, but by the same token, let's all stand back and wait till the end of the investigation and reach a measured and reasoned evaluation. >> congressman, i don't have the luxury of standing back. i'm in federal court against the irs. i've got 41 clients.

i don't get the luxury to sit back. >> i want to thank all of you again for being here. i know the ingle brechts have a gentleman in texas recognized. >> i asked unanimous unanimous consent to insert into the record the three-page letter i sent to attorney general eric holder asking for a special prosecutor where he did not respond. ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. i appreciate that, judge. again, the ingle brechts have a plane to catch. >> i have one question. >> go ahead. >> i think there's a difference here between -- with all due respect to the ranking member, there is no question that these groups, my clients,ing many more who are -- many more people, hundreds of groups, hundreds of groups involving thousands of citizens, there is no debate

about the fact that they were subjected to a process which was instituted within the irs in late 2009 or early 2010 which changed the historic procedural manner that is published on the website of the irs, that is the publicly available process that is supposed to be followed. in reviewing applications for exempt status. there's no question that that happened. so what i think when you're saying the question of what wrongdoing, that is the wrongdoing. we are supposed to be a nation of laws. and the rule of law is that the process is published. anybody hob applies is subjected to the same process, the same procedures, and something changed inside the irs. and that happened. there's no debate about that. >> right. >> and that was wrong. now, whether it rises to a criminal offense, i have mentioned several things that

are criminal offenses. those are the things we take exception to that the justice department needs to be investigating that they really don't -- they really haven't, to our knowledge or satisfaction. and people are calling for the appointment of a special counsel. but let's not go away from this hearing with any debate about whether or not the facts exist as they exist, which is that hundreds of grassroots organizations were subjected to an entirely new review process created in washington and inflicted upon them by politically powerful people. >> well said, miss mitchell. miss engelbrecht, thank you for coming. miss mitchell, thank you, as well. mr. sekulow, we want to thank you, too. the committee is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

and allegeding targeting of an server the groups will air again on sunday. you can see it anytime at www.c- span.org. afternoon the senate blocked a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits by three militants -- months. send this democrats block the third attempt. the vote was 58 -- 20, with 60 votes needed to advance the measure. there is one republican vote standing in the way of a lifeline to these 1.7 million people. senator from nevada voted with democrats to --

that is from "the hill." i think the american public sees the first lady in very glamorous circumstances, , aally, state dinner am a gown. what they may not imagine looking at the white house from the outside is that it is a very --mal life upstairs on that on those two floors, the white lady'sesidence, at first actually lie on the couch and read a book. in my case a cat was always curled up next to me. program on first lady laura bush saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and on sunday the series continues with michelle

obama. the postal service has a deficit of $5 billion. a committee is working on a bill to overhaul its finances. paul wants to allow guns in post offices. under current law, guns are not allowed inside post offices. here's a look at the debate on the proposal. >> this is amendment number three. last week there were questions whether or not this amendment which would allow the carrying

of guns and postal prosperity -- property, whether it would be allowed in malls or federal buildings. you do not believe the language allow that. we have added -- and this is distributed in red for the and we say nothing in this section or an amendment they by this section shall be construed to affect the rights of private property owners or the application of laws in relation to federal property not a post officer postal property. we think this explains the concerns, and we would like to have a vote. >> i would ask you to know back and repeat for us slowly what you just -- i want to make sure i understand. >> it is a mandate to make explicit if there are private regulations or private restrictive covenants that does

not allow guns in a mall that those would still be in place and this would not supersede private restrictions on the carrying of guns, nor would it supersede any federal -- -- a mall -- there are post offices located in malls, country stores, convenience stores -- >> it says the rights of private property owners. anything that has restrictive covenants in that particular location would not be superseded. this ruling basically supersedes the post office's rules, but does not supersede private contractual rules nor any federal, state, or local laws on guns. >> could you take a moment and bring us up to speed on the court ruling, i believe it is a

district court judge in colorado had been asked to consider an a postalinvolving customer who had the right to state, inapon in his his county. there was a question whether or not he could have that weapon in the parking lot, as i recall, the parking lot of the post office. could you clarify -- what is the issue there and how has the judge addressed that? >> both the issue of parking lots versus insides of post offices, and they are attempting to address in parking lots, but i think whether the courts have made a decision her or not, we should go ahead and say what the will of the people is through the representatives.

>> help me with this, senator paul. judge'sistrict court ruling in this case, did it set policy or standard leon -- beyond a particular town to or >> i'm not an attorney. you may have to ask. my understanding is that rulings are not universal. the supreme court typically does. you will see the courts make decisions and they do not affect the rest of the country. my understanding as a non-lawyer is if you want to make a standard for the country, you should do it and if the courts rule one way or another, that does not prevent us making a decisionwe