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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> so these -- these have been in place for more than half a century. the committee will be in order. i want to thank y'all for being here. what you've been through is something that is just -- well, look, we appreciate your courage. we appreciate your willingness to come here and take some of

the questions you had to take. we appreciate it. i'll recognize the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get to my questions, i see my colleagues aren't over here on the other side of the aisle because i think it would be nice to see the application of us grilling the tide foundation in the same place that you are. a wonderful conversation, i think. but thank you very much, mr. chairman, for the opportunity. this is a serious issue in which the executive branch has abused its powers for political gain. my constituents in arizona are mortified and angry. congress must ensure that the investigation and the targets of these groups is being conducted in a thorough, timely, and appropriate fashion. so i'm going to ask some questions very quickly to each of the witnesses. i have a few to get through, so if you can keep it concise, i think it will be pretty self-explanatory. would the witnesses agree that the administration and the enforcement of the law should be done impartially and without regard to political affiliation?

>> absolutely. the constitution requires it. i agree. >> yes, sir. >> so real justice should be blind. >> absolutely. >> do the witnesses recall president obama and eric holder expressing their supposed outrage that the irs would target organizations that do not share their political views? >> yes. >> may 15th. >> do you happen to share in their outrage? >> absolutely. >> so do i. and so i do find it terribly ironic that the president and the attorney general expressed such an apparent outrage over this type of behavior, only later to assign the task to an investigator that is biased toward the administration. one of the lead investigators donated nearly $7 thousa,000. i do not believe she is the best fit to lead in this investigation and could potentially embarrass her party

or the man she wanted to be president. some might say the department of justice agrees and ms. bosserman leading the investigation is appropriate. the answer to the question is they refused outright. doj officials made the claim that making ms. bosserman available was tantamount to the targeting of a federal employee. the use of the word targeting was not incidental. the doj was attempting to draw similarities between the irs targeting of conservative groups. to make such an assertion is to imply that the oversight inquiries are inherently partisan and therefore the administration can and should refuse to provide witnesses to answer questions when called upon. so i ask you, witnesses. would you agree with that assessme assessment? >> that they -- yes. that they were targeting? >> yes. >> yes, they're targeting. they certainly targeted many,

many of our clients. >> but they're also trying to utilize it like we on this committee are actually targeting federal employees. you can see a very strong -- >> they've twisted the statute. they twisted the term. >> it's actually what they're doing is conflating two issues. one is the irs engaged in a systemic target, acknowledged systemic targeting. the selection of the department of justice attorney to head the investigation, they're trying to turn the targeting because we raised the concern of bias, which, of course, as a defense council, or as the plaintiff in a lawsuit, and there's a federal investigation, of course we're going to bring that up. so they're trying to turn what is an obligation of a lawyer to not have the appearance of impropriety, and they're trying to turn that as individuals on this committee targeting this lawyer, which has never been anybody's -- >> i agree with you. let me switch gears for a minute. you just took me right where i wanted to be. do the witnesses happen to know

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

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

sir, with your indulgence. i would close by noting that the irs commissioner has now approved $62.5 million in bonuses to the irs employees for their work in 2013 to boost their morale. how absurd. i would say that those millions might be best used at the irs for ethical training and boost awareness of the united states constitution. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from arizona and will go to the gentleman from michigan. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. thank you, and thank you distinguished members of the subcommittee and those testifying before us today. thank you very much. we appreciate hearing all those stories from our witnesses and it's awful what has happened to you. in hearing you and your testimony, i notice from my own district, it appears that the president has a war on the constitution. i always believed the irs was supposed to be objective. and treat everybody equally.

under this administration and irs, i guess some groups are more equal than others. it has almost been nine months since this has been made public, and we are no further along than when the initial report was released. instead, we get typical washington double talk, sidestepping the issue, happy talk, and verbal moon walking. these individuals testifying before us today deserve to have action taken. we need to hold this administration and the irs accountable and i'm committed to making that happen. in the hearing that was held in may of 2013, i asked mr. schulman of the irs numerous questions about the constitution of the bill of rights. i asked if the irs agents take classes on the bill of rights and they didn't know. mr. schulman is a lawyer and i asked him if he knew the first, second, and 19th amendments. he told me he didn't have the constitution memorized. that's pretty bad.

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

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

>> that's how i was raised. >> that's how you were raised, that's how i was raised and so many other americans. and now that you're doing that, the government, the irs, osha, and i have no doubt because i've experienced it myself, when teachers found out i was running for office with an r after my name, suddenly couldn't do anything right. never got a complaint, and all of a sudden i'm a conservative. i have a great belief that this country, the greatest -- well, that this country -- how can i say this. the greatest thing about this country is our cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. and, you know, i believe the other side agrees with that, too. unless, of course, you have an r or you're a conservative after your name. would you agree with that assumption? >> i think it's a correct assumption that the best thing about this country is its people. maybe we've lost our way for a little bit.

but we're finding it back. >> god bless you. thank you for what you're doing. i just want you to know my office has a door that's always open and you're always welcome, as is anybody else. feel free to stop in any time. thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. god bless you're welcome all of you. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan and i go now to the gentleman and friend from texas. >> thank you for letting me set on the committee today. i have some questions for you, so short answers will work okay. after you started, were you visited by the fbi? >> yes, sir. >> were you visited by the fbi terrorist squad? whatever they call themselves to investigate terrorists. >> yes, sir. >> how many times did you have either meetings or conversations with the fbi? >> there were six inquiries. >> were you visited by osha?

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

progressive groups? >> yes, sir. on a very regular basis. >> what does that mean harassed? >> well, that can mean many things, but speaking falsehoods, bearing false witness, trying to take something like election integrity and turn it into something that divides us instead of unites us. >> and in your opinion, were you harassed by legislators? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that there should be a special prosecutor to investigate the irs? >> yes, sir. >> in 2013 on may 14th, i sent eric holder a letter. are you aware of the letter that i sent him asking for a special prosecutor and asking a bunch of questions about the irs? >> yes, sir, i am. >> i have not received a response from eric holder on it. have you received a response? >> no, sir. >> were you asked by the fbi or

the irs, rather, to produce all of the tweets that you ever tweeted? >> yes, sir. >> facebook posts? >> yes, sir. >> did you comply with that? >> i don't do facebook or twitter. >> the irs, they wanted to know all the places that you spoke publicly. >> yes, sir. >> did they want copies of your speeches? >> yes, sir. >> get this correct. the federal government wanted a copy of a citizen's speech in a public forum. >> yes, sir. >> did they want to know where you were going to speak in the future? >> yes, sir. >> did they want to know the names of the groups you spoke to? >> yes, sir. >> did they want the mailing list or the attendee list of the people that were in attendance at the places that you spoke? >> yes, sir. >> they wanted the speech, they wanted to know where it was, they wanted to know what you said, they wanted to know who was there. >> yes, sir. >> do you find that a little oppressive? >> i find it highly -- >> do you think that the united

states constitution lets the federal government swoop in and take away the right of free speech by demanding all of this information? >> it's not what the constitution was built to do. >> i had a chance to be in the soviet union back in the '80s. the people were totally oppressed by government. they were afraid of government. they were afraid to say anything or write anything about government. because government would punish them. take their jobs. put them in jail. harass them. take their money. all of those things. did you ever think that we would see in the united states of america a government through its agencies, the irs, the fbi,

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

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

today. thank you for being here. thank you for your fight. because, you see, america is worth fighting for. >> amen. >> and i yield back. >> i thank you. i walked in right at the end of that, but it sounds like a great presentation. i call it moms on a mission. look out. good things are going to happen. so i echo what the gentleman from texas had to say. mr. cartwright? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i have sat through today's hearing and first of all, i want to say i appreciate all of you coming. your viewpoint is appreciated. understood. i wish we had opposing viewpoints today for a fuller discussion, but that doesn't discount the value of your viewpoint. one thing i wanted the raise was i think one or of you have brought up the idea that people have said that there's no evidence of wrongdoing at the irs.

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

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

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

i only have limited time. >> i understand. the second point i wanted to make was there have been references to ms. bosserman, barbara k. bosserman who was invited but didn't come today. it is high lie irregular. it's really unprecedented to haul an investigator in before a congressional complete in the middle of an investigation for the very same reasons i just discussed because it can be prejudice an investigation because it can really foul it up. and theaters why we don't do that. but some of you, one or more of you have said that ms. bosserman was leading the investigation. and i wonder, is any of it you privy to who's leading the investigation? because attorney general holder testified i believe it was in the ways and means committee -- no, i believe in the senate, he

testified that ms. bosserman is not, in fact, leading that investigation. so if one or more of you is privy to information that she is, in fact, the lead on this investigation, now is the time to share your information with us. >> let me do that to clarify this for you, congressman. our office and i believe we're the only ones so far had a conversation with the department of justice, the highest ranking official on that call was miss bosserman. i want to be very clear and i appreciate you giving them a moment to do this. we are not disparaging her credentials at all. it's raised significant issues but i also think it's important to point out that with regard to her relationship within the department of justice, she's a junior official in the department of justice and the highest ranking member of the department of justice that we work with. >> you suspect that she may be in the lead of they investigation? >> we were teld she is. >> the truth of the matter is that you don't know and in fact, attorney general eric holder has said that she is not. so do you really mean to come in

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

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

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

gentleman in texas recognized. >> i asked unanimous unanimous consent to insert into the record the three-page letter i sent to attorney general eric holder asking for a special prosecutor where he did not respond. ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. i appreciate that, judge. again, the ingle brechts have a plane to catch. >> i have one question. >> go ahead. >> i think there's a difference here between -- with all due respect to the ranking member, there is no question that these groups, my clients,ing many more who are -- many more people, hundreds of groups, hundreds of groups involving thousands of citizens, there is no debate about the fact that they were subjected to a process which was instituted within the irs in

late 2009 or early 2010 which changed the historic procedural manner that is published on the website of the irs, that is the publicly available process that is supposed to be followed. in reviewing applications for exempt status. there's no question that that happened. so what i think when you're saying the question of what wrongdoing, that is the wrongdoing. we are supposed to be a nation of laws. and the rule of law is that the process is published. anybody hob applies is subjected to the same process, the same procedures, and something changed inside the irs. and that happened. there's no debate about that. >> right. >> and that was wrong. now, whether it rises to a criminal offense, i have mentioned several things that are criminal offenses. those are the things we take exception to that the justice department needs to be investigating that they really don't -- they really haven't, to

our knowledge or satisfaction. and people are calling for the appointment of a special counsel. but let's not go away from this hearing with any debate about whether or not the facts exist as they exist, which is that hundreds of grassroots organizations were subjected to an entirely new review process created in washington and inflicted upon them by politically powerful people. >> well said, miss mitchell. miss engelbrecht, thank you for coming. miss mitchell, thank you, as well. mr. sekulow, we want to thank you, too. the committee is adjourned. >> on the next washington

journal, the chief congressional correspondent with the washington examiner looks to the week ahead in congress. then sam baker, the health care reporter with the national journal talked about the medicare advantage program under the health care law. initiative to keep the space station in operation for four more years. washington journal, live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern, which are called, tweets, and facebook comments. -- with your calls, tweets, and facebook comments. also tomorrow, and all day conservative all as the summit

-- policy summit at the heritage foundation. senator jim, who is the president, and other guests will join him. thehe ward privatization -- war on privatization will go very successfully indeed. >> a whole list of what was on parliamentary expressions.

minister wasime required to withdraw the remark he made which suggested the leader of the opposition was less than honest. i cannot remember the details now, but the thing was of course, but it said that churchill was once instructed by the speakers to withdraw an accusation of lawing -- li ying. i willaid to have said call it a terminological exactitude -- in exactitude. it is probably a myth. >> a behind the scenes look at the british parliament, tonight at 8:00 p.m., on q and a. next, three candidates debate about the opening congressional

seat in largest 13th district. it became vacant after former representative ill young passed away last october. the candidate include david jolly, lucas overby, and alex sink. this is 50 minutes. [applause] questions,rt with some from viewers and some on the screen. toughest probably the candidates because we're asking for basically a yes or no answer. we will be timing your answers, there are lights that are down there about the yellow means

that you 15 seconds, we will try not to be rude but we have a lot of questions that we want to get to. please no show of support or do not forget you can join us and the debate on twitter. you can chat with us live about what is going on here on stage on bay news nine. -- baynews9.com/chat. of one minute. >> i've had the opportunity to work on the behalf of the evil for nearly 20 years. most of that alongside billy on, and now i'm a asking for their duty to follow him into the united states congress. viewse different use --

of government. we must empower families individuals to make decisions for themselves. less taxes, fewer regulations on and on to endorse. -- disagree on representation. and live in indian shores. to pinellas county for one reason, to run for congress, and further the agenda of president obama. it i am running for congress to defend those people. have oneerby, you minute. >> since the beginning of our campaign a year ago, our primary focus is been tried to bring back into the fold so many voters of this district to of abandoned the fight. felt disenfranchised by left out of the process. for the past year we have an effortt and made

to try to further the goals of the district. i would be very happy and proud to bring their concerns and solutions to a larger stage. severaldo agree with aspects of both of my opponents, we have great differences. i look forward to getting to discuss those this evening, and to come to as best a solution as we can. >> thank you. >> you of one minute for your opening statement. >> i want to thank the sponsors for tonight's event, and also thank you the listeners at home for listening in. i'm running for congress because like you, i am sick and tired of the dissension and washington. the power of the special interest, there's no common sense there, and a desire to get things done. i have a long history as a timeesswoman, during that i brought republicans and

democrats together to solve problems. problems like how to support small businesses so that they can grow jobs. how to protect social security and medicare for this generation as well as future generations. also how to ensure that veterans get the benefits that they have earned. these are the issues that i'm going to be working on that i to serve asproud the voice of the people. >> a round of applause, if you would. [applause] here we go, lightning has struck in this round. one word answers. the --ld florida except except the plan to expand medicaid? >> yes. >> yes. guarantee thata

they will not pull out the blanket from underneath us. >> one-word answers. [laughter] the budget?pport >> you support legalizing marijuana? >> i do not. >> yes. >> i have a longer answer. i support the idea of medical marijuana, for my friends who -- who need itl for their lives, but i'm not support potshots in every corner of florida. was rick scott correct in refusing right -- high-speed rail money? >> yes. >> absolutely not. >> yes. >> what is your favorite beach, and what is your favorite part of the trail? be --favorite beach might

>> the stretch of trail that goes through seminal. will have 60 seconds to into these longer questions. what would you say to mr. charge?charts that -- >> that was a multipart question for a 62nd interview. second interview. when i was approached to

the district, big port in question to me was to i share the values of the people of this district yet go i believe that as we go one tonight and throughout this campaign the people of this district are going to understand, as you have already seen a little bit of, that we have very different approaches. i believe that my political values are very well aligned with the people of the county. furthermore, i've been working in the county for 25 years in business, through banking, through serving, and through corporate boards, and through my charitable work. i'm quite confident that the in ae will support me dorsey, like firefighters and realtors, and teachers. >> mr. jolly? deciles -- the house of

representatives is a people's house. you cannot be appointed to it. the founders knew that the house of representatives should be the closest to the people go that the community should neglect who represents them. i represent the fact that alex was to change washington, and i think she should have done that by running against her congressman. -- you couldange really change it then. >> mr. overby? >> at the end of the day i do not think it is going to be the determining factor of this race. residents oflot of penelope county are interested by the concept. i've spent the last decade working with different groups trying to better my community, and doing the best we could very i do not think either of my opponents have the real ties that they can bring to the table. >> can you answer the question of whether you would commit to

stay into this -- stay in this county? >> i am not moving. [laughter] >> question number two. this one comes from dan hester. obamacarerious about amah of course. i do think that it is my opinion that the health care in our country has taken a massive tep backwards. inonder if they would be support of repealing obamacare in the totality? >> 60 seconds. premises founded on a that has been called the lie of the year. how identity can defend obamacare is beside the i would say to repeal immediately. and big we need to offer solutions, talk about long-term health insurance policies for young people that can get into unaffordable plan early.

an affordable plan early. obamacare has heard people in this county. hurt april in the county county.people in this >> complete repeal? >> i'm in favor of getting the costs down. if we have to retain parts of obamacare, there are good parts of it. i do not believe in forcing people to buy insurance, but i like the covered part of the bill. we need to give doctors better access to their patients, and we need to fight to reduce costs were congress can. >> it is important for people to note what my values are. the first values that americans deserve the right to have access

to health insurance, and affordable health care. this affordable care act has not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but my position is it should not be repealed because we cannot go back to where we were before. for every person that david jolley says he has heard from, i've heard from people who are thrilled. i do not know how you look into the eyes of the man i met who said he had never had health insurance and he was so excited. i did go back to explaining that we are going to deny for pre-existing conditions? i know we have this doughnut hole that will put seniors in bankruptcy. one reason that i'm running for congress is to go to washington and work with others, worker across party lines to identify the things that are wrong with the affordable care act and

fixed them. >> what do you say to that? this is something, i'm glad we have opportunity talk talk about this. we can fix the problems, and should fix the problems. i do not think we need to have government interfere with our economy about the individual mandates on us, we have to solve these problems. my question is that you continue to say we need to fix what's broken. what is broken? what do you think we should fix? first of all, what are the major problems i have with it is that i do not understand why the president and the congress created a way to negotiate for door prizes for the pharmasset companies. for drug prices from the

pharmaceutical companies. we have a lot of medical factual -- medical device manufacturers, and that will result in job losses for our district. i could go on and on about things that need to be fixed. those are just two of the primary examples of things that need to be fixed. i have to add that david jolly has no solution. he has gone on record as saying he would fully repeal the act, and i do not wish to go back to where we were before, to a system that was not working. >> to be honest when neither of you are asserting solutions. we are going back 30 years and having the same argument we were having before clinton. look at the government opened the way, and it cost down. the samegoing over problem we have had bad we need to do something to fix it. >> question number three.

the flood insurance practice is a big deal for this this trick. , how would you resolve it? mr. overby? >> i'm in favor of suspending him for the four years will we get to work on real solutions. we have been working with the insurance intercede to update lorna and other states. no one has come up with anything substantial yet. whatn support of representative brandis is working on with expanding the public option to get involved. a lot of that will deal with deregulating and stopping people from being forced into the government option. think -- sink? >> this is a complex issue. i've reached out to insurance talk to the agents, thedr. -- and talked to

realtors in this county. i bring people together to solve the problems. fivee come up with four or suggestion, that you can find on my website. they do involve putting a standstill now, and let's get to work on exploring right options importantly wet cannot kick the can down the road for more years. people are going to be very concerned about what is going to happen at the end of that for years. >> a bad law today is a bad law now. we need to do it because it is the most tenable solution right now, but we need to include commercial properties. so long as we have to look to washington or some type of program, washington should diverse and five the risk across finally, thebut

answer's not going to be in washington. the answer is going to be in the private sector, creating a more efficient process to move products. i think that is the answer. that the wanted to add reason that we have the national flooded search for a gram in diverse places that the private market was not working at all after a series of hurricanes and floods. to suggest that the private market is going to be able to come right back in is a little just ingenuous -- a little disingenuous. >> we're going to have to move on. >> we are -- >> let's talk about immigration reform. the question is, do you support comprehensive immigration reform?

this is a 32nd answer. answer.cond >> i do support immigration reform. periods withnal this when the valedictorian of art children's high school came up and confess that he was undocumented nobody wanted to go to college. that, you tell a kid like was done everything possible, and with been a good student, that he cannot be in this country and be a intervening member of our society echo i support the senate plan, the bipartisan plan, the democrats and republicans can come together and i think the house can take action. a pathway toupport citizenship. where loving and caring nation, but we are a nation of laws. it is important that those who broken the law recognize that. that includes individuals and employers. -- we have to hold employers accountable as well.

florist who has come here and created business who employs people, but she does not have a pathway to citizenship. she asked to return to the u.k. before she can come back and operator business. we cannot insult people to do it legally. >> mr. overby? the do support governance of -- the comprehensive immigration reform. ivan -- i am in full favor of working with the government to utilize the resources to secure the worst of -- borders. this district has more than

100 70,000 social security beneficiaries, and 170,000 medicare beneficiaries. bill young supported a bipartisan package that cut benefits and raise package -- raised taxes. would you support a similar compromise? >> i been clear from the beginning, we have two guarantee they promised to the current tvon fisheries -- karen promises to the current beneficiaries. nothing for anyone under 30? >> washington made that promise, and i said very when -- i said it at the beginning of this race that i'm 41 years old, and long-term entitlement reform is the only way to reach a balanced budget. let's begin to do that with

those who are not yet in the system. we cannot break a promise that all -- washington has already made. >> i find it funny that you're 41, not 30 yet. who ends up paying for the extended costs? i will get no benefit, and it will be me. i do not support doing that. several been alternatives suggested by groups such as aarp, and other for this.ive reforms we do not necessarily have to cut, or increase the cap. -- to the capcap will increase the amount we have to pay off. we need to do it as a charitable donation, decrease the amount we are putting out without forcing people to give up the benefits they have already paid for. >> when i go to congress, i'm going to fight to protect social security and medicare. it is a promise that we have i heart offends me when

mr. jolly call it an entitlement program. i've been been paying into medicare and social security for 40 years. that i earnedt the win is a promise that we made to our seniors, because we do not want our seniors living in poverty. -year-old daughter is sitting in the front wall, and i do not want her to worry about whether or not she want access to health care, and whether she is going to have social security benefits. candidate, you can take a breath of and we're going to take a break. live from st. petersburg college, our conversation continues right after this. [applause] erewelcome back we're back he

come and you can join in on twitter. it can also chat with us live. a question for you, this is a 32nd question. this one comes from one of our viewers. i does want to see how they can make financial aid more affordable, more available to more students. >> the question was, making more money available for students. apart fromset you the other candidates in terms of that question about student financial aid? the cost of student financial aid and the cost of college has gone up dramatically due in part to subsidies. we need to get the federal government out of the way and allow colleges to be more competitive in the more they are embedded it, the more they will fight to bring students to their schools. that is how we will get the best and brightest through college.

>> this reminds me of going up in the family farm in north carolina. said you cannot eat the seed corn. students, minder standing that mr. jolly things we ought to cut federal spending. i disagree, we have to take a more balanced approach. we have to invest in our future. young men like this one are continuing to have access to financial aid to improve themselves and prepare for the jobs of the 21st entry. to me, that is a great investment to make. tiee need to finally universities and colleges to the same financial path the students have. --y should be bested

invested about the success of the student of an offer -- realize that they are offering a product to the students. financial aid and financial assistant goes to the cost of education today. adversitiest public in florida when that is a great thing for our students, but in the believe the cost have to come down. we tie the college to the loan. you get in office, you will only be an office for a few months. what will you accomplish in those few months? iseverything i'm going to do hold them accountable to how in the world they came up with these outrageous funding measures. i cannot figure out how in the world they dreamed up these incredible, unaffordable life insurance rates without doing an affordability study, without doing remapping. that is be my first order of

business. >> we have to sell flood insurance. this is often not talked about in this great nation, constituent service. mr. young served for 43 years, and took care of the people of this county. those are big shoes to fill. he left in the incredible legacy of constituents, and the first thing a member of congress needs to do is make sure we carry out the constituent service to seniors and veterans, and the workers here in the county. focus toe switch the the special election am a we looked at the temple find tax decreases for everybody. the environment we're going to be walking into will dictate that. spending under

control this country, we need to make sure we keep as many dollars as possible in the pockets of americans. >> another lightning round. try to keep it to a yes or no, or eight words. when they do nine words, you get up and scream. [laughter] sex couples just challenged the state ban on gay marriage. oppose?ort or >> opposed. it is a state issue. >> how would you vote on that? >> i'm ok with the amendment. the sanctity of marriage is between the partners and their god. >> i support. >> you have to repeat the question. i did not understand his answer. challenged the ban.

do you support or oppose? >> i support gay marriage. >> do you leave gun control laws -- believe in gun control laws? >> it should be dealt with at the state-controlled -- state level. >> i support the second amendment, but we should close gun show loopholes. more background checks. >> we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. >> would you like to see roe versus wade overturned? >> absolutely not. >> i would. >> yes. >> do you support raising the minimum wage? >> i support it with a living adjustment. >> no >>. . >> yes i support increasing the

minimum wage. understand mr. jolly's answer. >> we index a number of federal programs that index living wage. itthink it is fair we let -- w / is silly that we would let congress said it. i think we have to determine what is the appropriate way to set it. we need to take all of the information from the economists. and once we arrive at the rate, let's index it. every year that we go forward, it is very progressive. >> one more question.

do you support light rail into lovely county -- in the county? >> no. >> yes. >> no, it is a tax increase. for a veryied controversial changes to social ,ecurity, to offshore drilling you do not agree with either of those positions. did you change your position to run for congress? >> i don't appreciate the question of i never lobbied for that. i've worked alongside mr. young to negotiate the 230 mile ban. i stood by that from day one. on social security, you know what we talked about, we talked about guaranteeing social security for everybody. we finally recognize that so security is not guaranteed, recognizing the out year obligation of that promise and

own it as debt. we can begin to tackle it. >> reasonable expectation? >> we know when a washington lobbyist is. themade the decision after he work with representative young and go across the street so we can create favor and take advantage of his relationship in congress. these answers back and forth of an appointment and oil drilling, or representing a client, even lobbied for the ride budget which allows for putting back repair -- adding medicare in the back burner. >> i am on the record of -- as opposing the ryan budget.

you anchor older political career using money from lobbyists. be prepared to give that back? to have aepared debate on wednesday? >> where are you on this? -- drillinggelling is the choice of the state, they should doubled to drive with a want the state to go. >> moving on to question number nine, party agreement. is there an issue in which you disagree with your party's leadership? >> definitely. example, president obama is advocating for something called a change to cbi. the a myth that the social security robinson and payments that social security recipients get.

i cannot agree with that. disagree with flood i would haved voted against the ryan budget. >> i disagree with several aspects of the way my party approaches politics. often bullheaded, and little overzealous. our been a pragmatist, and jobs are to find solutions that everybody can agree to. >> there has been a lot of controversy over, and corp. -- o ver common core. position, should the states start over? decisions in the classroom should be made in the classroom. the best decisions are made closest to the student.

a schoolteacher. the issue with common core and standards are mandates. there's nothing wrong with embracing the lessons and skills of experienced educators, but what is wrong is when we mandate that our classrooms. i agree, the closer we can get education decisions to families, the better off we will be. about as what we can do that in congress, linking the adoption to common core two funds from the government is why we are finding ourselves in the mess we are in now. a moreentually lead to restrictive relationship between teachers and students. we need to find a way to break congress needs to not hold that out as a carrot. >> it was established by the national governors association,

the republican governors and the democratic governors got together to establish the standards. year, what i'm interested working inhey were the test, because they're competing with kids all of the country -- all over the country and the world. establishing standards are important. >> let's have a little bit of fun. very quickly, ask one of your opponents any question you would like. mr. overby? >> what is the different between an entitlement and a welfare? >> when you say entitlement, today the philosophy of entitlement -- >> the definition of entitlement versus welfare.

welfare leads to giving somebody something that they may not have urged. entitlement is something that could be something somebody urge. -- earned. i was not an english major. [laughter] i'm very curious about the libertarian party. on the one hand, federal government as little as possible, but on the other hand many social issues. you want government to stay out of everyone's personal life. can you elaborate? >> we believe that the role of government is to protect the states amongst themselves, and protect us against the state if they were to take advantage of us.

no state should be able to take advantage of their citizens. as far as economic issues, that should be as close to the state as possible because we have been awestruck control -- the most direct control. >> did you have a conversation with the democratic leadership in washington dc about moving to and running for congress? >> i had a conversation with the head of the local democratic with most of the democratic elected officials here, i've been endorsed a 55 elected officials here in this county, and those of the people whose opinions i've relied on before. >> we are going to take a break, and we are going to come back. our conversation with the candidate continues. please stay with us. [applause]

>> welcome back, our conversation with the candidates roles on right now. do not free to join in on the debate on twitter. you can also chat with us live online. bill young's cash flow, this is a 32nd answer. the late congressman bill young work to bring money back to district hurricane. that cash is nearly gone. how do you plan on replacing it? >> we're are living in an entirely different era now. he was able to getting a lot of earmarks, and he brought the bacon home. we have to recognize that in this congress, with minimal earmarks yet to work with congress in a different way. >> it is a great question. that are results of the investment of mr. young in this county. this is because of the qualification of the candidates.

i had the opportunity to serve with mr. young when he was chairman of the appropriations committee. we have debited me to like someone who knows how to work within the current budget to detect programming for manufacturing jobs right here in the county as part of the program. >> the senator was going to spend money for infrastructure. one of the key focuses of my campaign has been to restructure on directing -- contracting. it came back to the biggest and most well-connected firms in the area. we need to start with focusing on small business. we need to have an opportunity to get involved in these contracts, and get the private sector going again. --our final your question the were question. -- viewer question.

andhat their platform is, any background that would help me or other voters vote? >> it sounds like there are platforms. >> in 32nd, what sets you apart? >> one of the key things that sets me apart is that i am not a politician. i have not work inside the system entirely -- my entire life, and until a year ago i shuttered away from the idea. i've been working within the community to build it up and make it better. i'm willing to work wherever we need to to make life at her for us here in the counter for americans across the country. >> what sets you apart? >> one of the things that sets me apart is that i have been elected by the people of the county. they elected me as the chief and they officer, actually elected me as governor four years ago.

the most important part of my platform is to go to congress to break the logjam. to bring republicans and democrats to work together to solve critical issues that we have this country, on which there are many. there are a lot of differences in the way that the candidates here would approach those issues. >> it is a great question. think bigger government, higher tech it' -- taxes infringe on personal liberty. the concert are -- constitution starts with securing inevitable liberty. -- individual liberty. smaller government is the way to protect that because i do not want government to make decisions for my family, or my home, or my kids. i think obamacare and other large government rod grams -- programs impinge on individuals.

>> there was a lot of debate about the so-called paul ryan budget plans. it cut medicaid, shifted some medicare options. what is your take on that? in congress would you be supporting this? >> no. we have gone through the budget when the biggest area of waste is not the programs themselves conveyed it is how they are executed. it is where the money flows of the lease the taxpayer. squander away the majority of the money through bree r christy, and welfare is one of the programs where we lose more money through bureaucracy then reaches the people who need it. cutting the spending on the backs of the people in most need , cutting their spending on the backs of soldiers and their families is absolutely insane. that is not the type of nation that we should be. we should be looking where we can make cuts realistically. >> i agree with lucas.

theink that when we look at issues of the federal budget, we have to look at waste and fraud and abuse. i agree that small businesses are not given the opportunity to do business with the federal government because washington lobbyists have it all locked up . they have a print testing -- a product,c but cannot get an audience because they will not listen to her. >> the last time you want political connections you said you needed to learn more about the ryan budget. have you shifted that? >> i said that there was a lot of good in the ryan budget, it actually achieves balance.

the obama budget never achieves balance, and that is the difference in who we support in this race. thereason i needed to check details was because the ag change the benefits. where i think the age should changes where they have invested. i would have to come out in guaranteeing social security and medicare. claim, i've been consistent in my position from the beginning. >> because you'll be in the united states congress coming will be talking about other things in just the county, some of it will have to do with foreign affairs. the united nations reports more than 100,000 syrians have them killed since the war started in 2011. would you have supported more aggressive military action? >> i would not have.

the reason is because i do not believe we ought to put more boots on the ground, especially where we cannot understand the dynamics. >> this is very important. assad used chemical weapons on his own people did killed nearly 500 children. i think president obamas the spot was an abject failure. yes he drew a line, and it should've been enforced right away. >> i did not support intervention and syria, and i was running for congress when it happened. we reached out to citizens on all sides, and we were talking with men and women who were on the street. they did not want us intervening in their military affairs command i think we set a terrible presence in the past of continually going into other nations and meddling in their

people and their government. us going in and killing more people is not going to solve anything. >> we have arrived at the closing part of our program. we will have our closing statement, and you will have one minute each to give us your best pitch possible. ms. sink? >> thank you all for listening. you have a very important position -- decision to make. you have heard tonight enormous differences between myself and the opposition. the important thing to remember is who is going to represent your interests in washington. i'm running for congress, as i have said, to bring republicans and democrats together, and to help to break the logjam. i'm not going to be the voice of socialist just -- social interest, i'm going to be your voice. i've been all over the district talking to small business

leaders, and teachers, and those who care deeply about affecting social security and medicare, and those are the issues i'm going to focus on. i would be honored to serve as the congresswoman from this county. i'm asking for your support, and i need your vote. >> over the last year, we have taken our time to meet with as many people as possible in this district. to really form a platform based around their needs, and the solutions they want to see happen. alex is right when there is a large difference between all of us, and i think that difference rests in the fact that i'm not a part of the political machine in washington. i know party to answer to. we will get done what needs to be done to deliver the solutions that the legal -- the people want. that is a promise. >> thank you to the moderators, and to the tampa bay times.

it is not easy to put yourself out for elected office, but we chosen to do so, and i admire alex for her spirit of , you cannship and take your core convictions to washington, and recognize you have a responsibility to work with others. we had a primary race, and i had worked with democrats, and i will continue to do that in washington, but there is a very different opinion on the view of government. one that supports president obama, and big government notions, or one that believes individuals about them is, less taxes, english, and leaves and empowering the people. my name is david jolly, and i am asking for your support for the united states congress. >> tell us what your websites are, because we know that that will come up. davidjolly.com.

lucasoverby.com. that will come up several weeks from now on the newsnight -- on bay news nine. this is a very important election, it is march the 11th, do not forget to get out and vote. see this being able to program again, you will be up to see this as 11:30 a.m. you can see it on bright house networks, local channel 99. thank you for being with us. a round of applause for our candidates. [applause]

>> on the next washington journal, the chief correspondent with the washington examiner looks ahead to the week in congress. the cuts talks about to the medicare advantage program. plans to keep the international space station in operation until --4, four more years until longer than planned. washington journal, live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern, with your calls, tweet, and facebook comments. also tomorrow, and all day conservative policy summit, hosted by the heritage foundation in watching and easy .- in washington dc

>> it is really an instrument of the president, and that has always been the case. the president has always been the master. i mentioned in the book, each comes to view it as their personal pop stand. they contracted to do things in secret, they do not have to worry about the normal congressional appropriations process. convenient, attractive, theoverly seductive tool in

foreign-policy arsenal. >> from the shadows to the frequent center of controversy, a look at the cia. >> senator rand paul, thank you very much for being with us here on the "newsmakers" program. joining us with the questioning is jeremy peters who covers congress and politics for the new york times and steven dinan, congressional reporter for the washington times. thank you for joining us. let me begin with a follow-up to the state of the union address. he called it a year of action. he white house that he is wi