bureaucrats in some remote office contrary to what the president of the united states told the american people on sunday. and number three, the irs scandal is not over. it is continuing to this day, and the department of justice investigation is a sham. it is a non-existent investigation. with regard to point number one, let me tell you in one sentence what the irs scandal is. the irs at the direction of some political elites in washington, not in cincinnati, but washington, took what had been for decades a process of reviewing applications for exempt status that a 5013c company would expect to take three to four weeks and they converted the process into one

that took three to four years and in some cases is still not over. number two, the line agents in the irs had their work disrupted and halted by washington. in 2010, true the volt filed its application for c 3 status and did not obtain that c 3 status until we sued the irs. so in september they granted it. people shouldn't have to sue to get their tax-exempt status. when lois lerner and president obama accused line agents in cincinnati of being responsible, ladies and gentlemen, that is a lie. i knew when lois lerner said that in may of 2010, when she admitted that it was happening, after we knew it was happening -- it's sort of like we knew we were targeted it's just that she finally admitted it. i knew it hadn't happened in cincinnati because the first

time i really became aware of this was with a group that i represent. we filed for tax-exempt status in october of 2009. besides cashing our check for our filing fee, we did not hear from the irs again until june of 2010 and we didn't hear from cincinnati. we heard from washington. that group did one thing. it lobbied against obama care. in the fall of 2009, spring of 20 10rks something a 501(c)(4) organization is permitted to spend 100% of its program expenditures doing. we didn't get the tax-exempt status for that organization until july of 2013. when i took on the representation of catherine engelbrecht and her two organizations in the fall of 2011 -- this is now a year after she has sent her application to the irs and she's heard nothing,

and when i talked to the assigned agent in cincinnati in october of 2011 saying we're going to supplement the application to try to help make it easier for you to process, he told me at the time, oh, there's a task force in washington. we can't do anything until we hear back from washington. number three, this scandal is not over. the lying has not stopped. i represent one tea party group, tea party patriots who applied in december 2010. they still don't have their c 4 status. there are lies upon lies in this ugly episode. the commissioner of the irs lied to congress -- i believe it was this committee 234 march of 2012 or april of 2012 when he said there was no targeting. how many communications from the irs to members of congress who inquired about the status of applications and whether there

was targeting, how many communications were there in which agents of the irs told congress that there was no targeting? those are lies. lying to congress is a crime. department of justice refused to investigate who it was who was responsible for releasing the confidential tax information of coke industries to the president's economic adviser who in turn released it to the press or released the national organization of marriages tax return, i represent nom. we sued irs to try to get to the bottom of why our confidential tax information was made available to our political opponents. where is the fbi in investigating? that is a criminal offense. it's a criminal offense also for the irs to have released to confidential donor information of the texas public policy 230u7b dags and the republican governors public policy council, conservative organizations whose donor information was released

by the irs. that's a criminal offense. who is investigating that? and then finally the lies -- again, it is a lie, it is a felony to lie to a federal agency, and yet the irs on the day after thanksgiving in proposing these regulations, the agent from the irs who transmitted those proposed regulations in the formal publication says that there are no related documents. that's what it says on the website. related documents, none. yet, i have submitted a four-year request on behalf of tea party patriots for turned lying background documents, they said we can't get your those documents until april. the public comment period closes february 27th. so there are no documents but it will take them until april to get them to us. that's a lie. they also lied when they transmitted those regulations and said that the the purpose of

the regulations was the tip that report. there are too many lies, mr. chairman. it's time to get to the dog, time for the fbi to investigate those criminal acts. it's time for the irs to cooperate as we try to get to the truth of why it's happened and how to make it stop. thank you. >> thank you, ms. mitchell. ms. garretson. thank you. >> thank you for inviting me here to speak. i can't tell you how much i appreciate you holding this hearing. unfortunately i'm not hear to carry a message of joy or thanksgiving. i'm in absolute grief for my be loved country. eight months ago i along with five other victims laid out our cases about irs abuses in a committee just like this. at that hearing we learned details about the irs leaking confidential donor information to opposition groups when proven this is a felony. we learned of serious constitutional violations of the first and fifth amendments.

we witnessed multiple violations of the administrative spreed your act as well as the internal revenue code. louis learner outright lied to the american people blaming the scandal on a few rogue agents in cincinnati knowing full well that the targeting involved irs offices across the country including her very own office in washington, d.c. lois lerner took the fifth for a reason. government employees don't go rogue en masse. their orders originate somewhere. yet even with all these known violations of the law, no one has been blamed, shamed, fired, arrested or brought to justice. because of that i have to ask how many people in congress are taking this seriously. since my last testimony in congress, i still have not been contacted by the fbi. the fbi told the "wall street journal" that no one would be charged with a crime, yet they haven't even interviewed the witnesses. are you going to let them get away with this? if so, then i must say it again, my government has forgotten its

place. it appears that many in washington fear regular citizens standing up for constitutional limited government. why in america is it now considered a threat to our government to study the founding documents and to advocate for responsible spending. why is giving out copies of the constitution, discussing pending 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 parts. 102 questions, and that was almost two years after the application had been filed. and i have been doing this a long time, and i have never seen anything like it. i knew something was going on. and to say that it was bone headed mistakes is to treat all

of these people with utter contempt and disrespect. plus what they have been through and still going through. and i would implore the democratic members of the committee and of the congress to not fall in line and try to defend something that is indefensible and to treat this as some kind of partisan ball game. and the democrats and republicans came together. and congress was doing the intent upon doing the oversight duty. and the media was intent upon actually exposing wrongdoing even in this administration. and somehow that dissipated with that speech that you just 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.

>> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell plans to introduce a bill to block rules on tax-exempt groups. he discussed his proposal on the senate floor. just last year i.r.s. officials and an inspector general's report confirmed what we've been hearing from constituents transvestite quite a while, that the i.r.s. was being used

to target americans for daring to exercise their first amendment rights. for daring to think differently, for daring to hold opinions contrary to high-ranking government officials. they confirmed that civic groups the administration opposed, including at least one in my home state of kentucky, were harassed and bullied by the i.r.s. they confirmed that individuals who supported these groups were intimidated and attacked. and they confirmed something else, too, that this happened in the runup to a national election. so americans were rightly outraged, outraged, when the worst fears of citizen organizations came to light. and americans rightly expressed the obama -- the american people rightly expected the obama administration to take

concrete steps to end this harassment once and for all. to put safeguards in place that would ensure the same kind of abuse could never, ever happen again. but that's not what happened. no, in fact, basically the opposite of that happened. the obama administration now seems to be trying to legitimize the harassment after the fact. to enact regulations that would essentially allow the i.r.s. to bully and intimidate americans who exercise their right of free speech. it's something they were originally planning to actually slip by while the harassment was actually still going on. but here's the thing -- the administration knew it could never get anything like that through congress the democratic way, so it's trying to quietly

impose these new regulations through the back door, through the back door by executive fiat. administration officials insist the rules change is just a minor -- just a minor bureaucratic adjustment. nothing to it, they say. they claim it's just a good-government idea from the i.r.s., a response to the inspector general report that brought these terrible abuses to light. but, of course, we know that's not true. we know that the administration has been working on this proposed rule for at least two years -- two years -- before the inspector general report came out. and from the looks of things, there's nothing good government about this at all. like so much of what we've seen with the obama administration, it's almost purely political. transparently political.

under the administration's proposed regulations, many citizen groups could be prohibited -- prohibited -- from participating in some of the most basic civic engagement activities. things like voter registration, issue advocacy, and educating citizens about candidates before an election. this is just plain wrong. grassroots groups shouldn't be persecuted for doing the very things americans expect them to do. they shouldn't be forced to shut up or shut down for engaging in the very kind of educational activities that 501-c-4 nation was -- designation was kind do support. the idea is to shut down the voices that oppose the administration's priorities and it comes on the heels of a long-running pet project of this administration to expose conservative donors to harassment in order to try to

dry up their funding. americans who care about the first amendment need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it. the american people need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it. and they actually are. more than 20,000 citizens have already submitted comments on this proposed rule at regulations.gov, northeasterly all the ones i saw were opposed. -- nearly all the ones i saw were opposed. in the house representative dave camp has proposed legislation that would prevent the i.r.s. from implementing any such regulation and next week along with senator flake, senator roberts and i will introduce companion legislation that would do the same thing here in the senate. but i hope it doesn't have to come to that. there's a much easier fix here.

there's a way out of this dilemma. the new commissioner of the i.r.s., john koskinen, can put a stop to the rule right now if he chooses. he can stop this thing right now if he chooses. and if he means it when he said when the senate confirmed him, the comments we heard about restoring integrity to the i.r.s., then he'll do just that. the speaker and i along with top senate and house leadership and leadership of the relevant authorizing and appropriating committees have just sent a letter to mr. koskinen on this topic, and we look forward to his response. back in the 1970's, richard nixon famously tried to influence the i.r.s. into helping him punish his political opponents. you see, the i.r.s. has been in this spot before. back then, the i.r.s.

commissioner stood up to president nixon and said essentially no, that's not what this agency is supposed to do. so the history of this is, when a previous i.r.s. commissioner had a president of the united states try to use him to target his political enemies, the commissioner of i.r.s. stood up to the president and said no. said no to the president. you can't use the i.r.s. to target your political enemies. that act of courage and independence became the defining act of an already distinguished career. and it was something the american taxpayer should be forever grateful for. so today, commissioner koskinen has a similar choice. he can either be remembered as the man who reformed this i.r.s. at a time when americans were deeply distrustful of it, or he

can be remembered as the man who allowed himself to be used by the administration for its own political ends. that's the choice. the bottom line is this -- americans need to be able to trust the i.r.s. again. and that means getting out of the nation's -- getting our nation's tax agency back into the commission it was -- mission it was designed to proarm, things like processing tax returns, not regulating free speech. the obama administration's proposed rule has almost nothing, nothing to do with actual tax policy. it's more about making harassment of its political opponents the official policy of the i.r.s. that, mr. president, is completely unacceptable. remember, this is an agency that has access to some of america's most sensitive

personal information. the power to audit, to penalize, to harass, power that is pretty wide-ranging. so it's not surprising that groups all across the political spectrum from the aclu to the chamber of commerce chamber have expressed concerns about this rule. so let's be clear. let's be perfectly clear. commissioner koskinen, you know, you know that the i.r.s. has no business regulating free speech. you know that. the eyes of america are on you.

they're counting on you to do the right thing. >> on the next washington journal, the history of politics in the olympic games. more on that topic with leon aron of the american enterprise institute. after that, a former new york city police commissioner discusses efforts to secure the sochi olympics and u.s. preparedness. plus, your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span, we bring public affairs evidence from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all

as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> at his weekly briefing, house speaker john boehner said an immigration bill would be hard to pass this year in part because of mistrust between republicans and the president. speaker boehner also comments on the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i travel around the country a lot and run into people on all corners of america and all types. everywhere i go, people are wondering why there is less

opportunity today than there used to be. i think this week we got a report from the congressional budget office that reminded us of one big reason, and that is the health care law. under the law, people wore work less, and under its employer mandate, wages will be lower. in the end, the law will drive 2.5 million full-time workers out of the economy. just like that, gone. in the white house, the response was they made a joke out of it. "come on." that is the attitude that has produced the worst economic record in american history, and it is more proof that the law must go. while that may take a new president, there are things we can do to get the economy growing again and back on track. we can start by expanding markets for american companies to export products and services. that would be good for american jobs and republicans and the

president agree on that. trade promotion authority is ready to go. why is it not done? with jobs on the line, the president needs to call his own party so we can get this done. he also could pick up his pen and approve the keystone pipeline. last week the state department produced yet another report showing what we already knew, that there is no reason, scientific or otherwise, to block this article any longer. once again, because some of the president's friends don't like the idea of the pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs that would be created, it's not going to happen. that brings me to my final point, immigration. you all know for the last 15 months, i talked about the need to get immigration reform done.

this is an important issue in our country and has been kicked around forever and needs to be dealt with. having said that, we outlined our principles last week to our members, principles that our members by and large support, put together by the leadership team, and they believe it. but i never underestimated the difficulty in moving forward this year, and the reason i have said that we need a step-by-step commonsense approach is so we can build trust for the american people we are doing this the right way. and one of the biggest obstacles we face is one of trust. the american people, including many of my members, don't trust that the reform we are talking about will be implemented as was intended to be. the president seems to change the health care law on a whim whenever he likes. now he is running around the country telling everyone he is going to keep acting on his own,

keeps talking about his phone and pen and he is feeding more distrust about whether he is committed to the rule of law. listen, there is widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it's going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes. >> mr. speaker, we understand the concerns of your conference on immigration and some of the concerns about how the administration would -- [inaudible] do you see any reason why you would peel back your attempt? you are going to try to move some pieces of immigration? >> we are going to continue to discuss this issue with our members. but i think the president has to demonstrate to the american people and to my colleagues that he can be trusted to enforce the law as it is written.

>> is that the predicate that you have to receive some trust from him. in talking with this with your members is different than moving a couple of bills on the floor. >> yes, it is. the president is asking us to move one of the biggest bills of his presidency, but yet shown very little unwillingness to work with us on the smallest of things. we sent a letter to the president outlining four bills, whether it's the skills act, the research bill, a couple of other bills. the president could reach out and work with us on those and begin the process of rebuilding the trust between the american people and his presidency. >> [indiscernible] is this legislation stalled until you see something specific? >> we are going to continue to

talk about this with our members, but the president is going to have to rebuild the trust so the american people and my colleagues can trust him to enforce the law the way it is written. >> when will we see any proposal on the debt ceiling will get the support of republicans after this week? >> i think we're still looking for the pieces to this puzzle. but listen, we do not want to default on our debt and we are not going to default on our debt. we are in discussions with our members how to move ahead and we have time to do this and continue to work at it. no decisions have been made. >> clean debt bill? >> we continue to talk to our members. >> you offered to put forward the approval of the keystone pipeline and attach it to it the debt limit. how can you get 218 for keystone?

>> mother teresa is a saint, if the congress wanted to make her a saint and get it attached to the bill, we probably couldn't get 218 votes. [laughter] >> on the trade bill, apparently there is as much problem in your caucus as with the democratic caucus and you wanted the 50 democrats' vote in the house, is that true? >> we have broad support in my caucus, but i don't think we have 218 votes for this. the president is going to have to produce some votes. >> mr. speaker, secretary lew said late february the debt limit has to be raised. what do you think the effective

date certain actually is, and at what point does the house actually have to act on something? >> before late february. i take jack lew at his word. if that's what it is, that's what it is. >> prospects for immigration, trade legislation, health care legislation appear to be dim and perhaps even dimmer, what is congress going to do this year? >> we have a lot of things on our plate. i think getting the sgr extended through the balance of the year or getting a permanent fix to that would be very helpful. we've got issues with flood insurance that we are going to have to deal with. but i do believe that issues like our version of how we would fix the health care insurance system is an important issue. tax reform continues to be an important issue.

let me reiterate one point. i have made clear for 15 months the need for the congress and the administration to work together on the issue of immigration reform. it needs to get done. i'm going to continue to talk to my members about how to move forward, but the president is going to have to do his part as well. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> at the daily white house briefing, spokesman jay carney responded to john boehner's remarks on immigration. here is part of that briefing. >> i would say a couple of things. we remain optimistic about the prospects for comrades of

immigration reform in 2014. we have seen significant movement among republicans on this issue. it is heartening to say that republican leaders in congress including the speaker of the house and others identify immigration reform as a necessary priority. the president's encompassedsues within comprehensive immigration reform, it is important to look at what he has done already. helping build bipartisan , helping build the most effective border enforcement that we have ever seen over the five years that he has been president. we have seen significant improvement in border security. cpb employs over 20,000 border patrol agents keeping staffing levels at an all-time high. they have deployed effective

save ms technology -- surveillance technology making progress toward a safer and more secure border. that is an issue that has been of particular concern to republicans as well as democrats. fact thatected in the the legislation in the senate the president supports further enhances border security. the president's record on that, i think it speaks for itself. , nothing thishis important, nothing this comprehensive ever comes fast or easy in washington. this won't be any different. fact that an absolute we have made enormous progress in building that consensus and even the republican party which had as its operative policy position not that long ago on

this issue, self deportation, has come a significant way towards the middle, towards the consensus that is now shared by , labor,es big and small law enforcement, religious communities, republicans and democrats across the country. we continue to see positive progress and we are going to work with congress to get this done. >> in spite of your optimism, the person who is running the chamber holding this up says he doesn't see the likelihood of this happening this year. i am wondering if there comes a like heen the president did on climate change and other things will say if congress won't act, i will. what could be done without power? >> there is no alternative to comprehensive immigration reform passing through congress. it requires legislation.

the president has made that clear in the past and that continues to be his view. that is why we need to work together to build on the existing bipartisan consensus. to see it help deliver a bill through the house and then a bill that can ultimately reach the president's desk. i think that the challenges within the republican party in this issue are well known and they don't have anything to do with the president. noted before, progress has been significant. genuine recognition among leaders in the republican party that this is the right thing to do for our economy. it is the right thing to do for our middle class. it is the right thing to do for our businesses. expandinglk about growth and opportunity, comprehensive immigration reform is very much a part of achieving that and achieving it together.

we are just going to work steadily on this issue and we believe that it will get done. >> coming up on c-span, president obama speaks at the national prayer breakfast. a senate committee works on bills to reform the postal service. followed by today's washington journal with your phone calls. >> today on c-span, homeland security secretary jeh johnson will be at the wilson center in washington to discuss topics such as immigration, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism. live coverage begins at 11:30 eastern. also today, president obama visits east lansing, michigan where he plans to deliver remarks. you can see it live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or on c-span.org.

>> the new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of c-span's extensive coverage of official washington. look for it on our homepage in a space called "federal focus." each day you will find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, congressional committee hearings , events with the president and members of his cabinet, press briefings from the white house, capitol hill, the state department and the pentagon, plus selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house and the courts. >> ever president sends dwight eisenhower has spoken at the national prayer breakfast. this year, president obama spoke

about religious freedom and tolerance. we begin with the national breakfast cochairs. this is just under two hours.

>> it is nice to have the president of the united states here, isn't it? [applause] great to have the first lady here. thank you so much. [applause]

thank you. you may be seated. program.egin the we are so glad y'all are all here today. for our foreign friends, i did say y'all. [laughter] there are a lot of things we appreciate about england and the british but they didn't give us a second person plural and we had to fill that in. it is y'all. we are glad y'all are here. that y'all includes everyone here as well as the hundreds in the overflow room that are joining us by video. it includes a c-span audience and we have many faithful people that are praying for this breakfast right now in the prayer room. together, janice and i will lead the house of representatives prayer breakfast every thursday

morning from 8:00 to 9:00 when we are in session. this is just an adjunct of what thursdays ands on what the house prayer breakfast of congressional members does on thursdays. one thing is sure, the singing today will be much better than we have at our breakfast. i will not be singing today. that already makes it much better. i do have to say, the breakfast is better where we eat than this. [laughter] >> these people paid a lot of money for this breakfast. [laughter] >> i wish it were really true that you get what you pay for. [laughter]

>> you can see why -- trials and tribulations with this man. [laughter] i came to congress not that long ago. two-and-a-half years ago. when i stepped off the plane here in washington dc, i remember reflecting on the great words of jesus, turn the other cheek, forgive 70 times seven. i thought, that will get me through the first week. [laughter] i grew up with a red letter bible, the bible that highlighted the words of jesus. i thought about that a lot too. jesus said love your enemies. do good to those who hate you. bless those who curse you. pray for those who treat you badly. he also said, everyone who makes himself important will be made humble but everyone who makes himself humble will be made important. he says whoever wants to be your leader must be your servant.

it is the sick people who need a doctor not those who are healthy. words used to be easier to live by before i came to congress. [laughter]