the islamic state believes it is the islamic state believes it is speaking for the faith tradition of sharia, islam, and as i have shown you you can go to those other organizations and you can go to the authorities of islam -- the university, for example, in cairo. or in other major recognized institutions, including a number of them in this country, and you'll see exactly the same basic teachings. where in fact the slaughter of infidels is not only permissible in the koran, it is mandatory. not throughout but in the operative passages which are those that came at the end of muhammed's life because it's

sharia is based upon one principle in particular called the principle of abrogation. what came last governs. as you may note, the ark of his life went from the period in which he was in mecca and receiving direction from allah through relevations that were teaching people to be tolerant and respectable of people in the book, christians and jews. it was at that point that he had no power and not much ability to do anything else. you saw a tactical approach that was accommodationist. he was driven out and went to medina and became rich and powerful and a leader of an army.

the revelations from allah were all about destroying the people of the book, most especially the jews. in other infidels. as to the question whether this ideology is bankrupt, let me share with you how these guys are doing it. in addition to what i showed you, where they are operating -- here. you can argue it is listed as here. these are the sort of things our government has done to help a number of these jihadist groups. running the gamut from enlisting them, engaging them in some sectarian struggles in places like syria to arming and training them and fighting for them in places like libya.

and embracing them right here in the united states in the case of the muslim brotherhood. i want to dwell on that for a moment but before i do, let me share with you this photograph because it came up in the and cheney's remarks. of the illegal release of these five jihadist leaders, the guys on the lower band are counterparts. these are not your one of the mill jihadists. these are top combatants. in what i called the war for the free world. turning them loose even to qatar or more broadly which is coming, i believe it is an enormous aid to the enemy. then there is this -- i think you probably picked up on this -- james o'keefe, a character, crossing the rio grande in osama bin laden's get-up. as you know, the insecure border

is enabling people who are the real deal to come across, not just children or people seeking employment, but people seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to bring the jihads here. i want to close a little bit with these guys because this is another form of threat that we almost always miss as we focus on the shiny, dangling object of these violent jihadists. they are the scary guys. they are the guys that are actually killing people. there is no question they want our destruction as well. we do have on sale here a copy of this book called "sharia -- the threat to america." in the appendix to this book which was also published as a separate book which you can get for free at securefreedom.org is

an explanatory memorandum, the strategic plan of the muslim brotherhood in north america dated 1991 and then delivered into our hands and used to great effect in the largest terrorism financing trial in american history, the holy land foundation trial. this document said this as its mission statement -- the muslim brotherhood is engaged in a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying western civilization from within. by their hands, meaning yours, my friends and the rest of us. as well as the believers so that western civilization is eliminated and god's religion is triumphant over all others. so, how does that work exactly? remember i just said muhamed had a tactical adjustment during a time where he was not powerful. this is basically the same deal.

when you're not strong enough to actually use violence decisively in a nation like ours, you use this civilization jihad. these are examples of the kinds of civilization jihadist techniques that are operating all around us.

if you start looking for them, you will find evidence. in academia. in the media. in our financial system. sharia-compliant finance. in our courts, not least, in our government. we address it at length in a course that is available for free online. the last part, 10 parts, video-based training talks about what we can do about all of this. i will close with that. three things in particular. michele bachmann sadly leaving congress shortly but a great leader on these issues has just introduced the legislation that would designate the muslim brotherhood what it is -- a terrorist organization. at the moment in this country, engaged in the civilization kind of jihad, sedition, subversion. it is nonetheless overseas and here engaged in the same and

jihadist enterprise as isis. we need to designate them and i hope we will get that legislation enacted. here in in colorado and other states, we could use your help as well. i mentioned the courts were another place where the civilization jihadists are trying to simulate sharia. it is indicating that in dozens of states around the united states, you are seeing what you are seeing which is the effort to insinuate this foreign law that is profoundly anti-constitutional, most especially for women and children into our court system. one quick example -- in new

jersey a couple of years back, a state judge was appealed to by a moroccan-born, american-naturalized citizen woman seeking a protective order against her husband because he was systematically torturing and raping her. the judge declined to give her that protective order because he could find no evidence of criminal intent. the man was simply following his rights under sharia. fortunately, overturned on appeal, but this law which basically prevents any foreign law, not sharia, any for law being used in the courts of a given state is, if they violate america's constitutional rights, is now on the books in seven states and was in the gop platform last year. we think it should be in every state. i don't have time to develop this at any length but another book that is available to you addresses a problem is of surpassing concern to me and i hope we can talk a little bit about this when peter is done. the single most effective way that the islamist and for that matter, other enemies of this country, could take us out is by

exploiting a vulnerability that has become increasingly evident mainly the lack of resiliency of our electric grid. the electric grid which powers all of the other critical infrastructure of this country. without which none of it works and without which none of us work or probably live for that matter. one estimate is of the power goes out for over a year, nine out of 10 of us will die. this book is a compilation of 11 different studies that has been done by the united states government. it gives you the flavor of it. whether they looking at physical assault of the grid or cyberattacks against the grid or something that could be very efficient in taking it down --

detonating a nuclear weapon in space over united states unleashing an electric magnetic pulse. or even of those terrible things don't happen, despite the fact that enemies of this country have that in mind for us, even if none of those events take place, you will find the sun creating very similar conditions to that nuclear detonation in space. every 150 years, we get whacked with an event of enormous electromagnetic energy as a result of a solar flare. i am sorry to tell you the last time that happened was 155 years ago. the good news is as the last point to make clear we know how to fix the vulnerabilities we have. we just need your help in

getting that done before one or another bad thing happens. with this cheery introduction, i will turn over the rest of the program to peter who will give you some of the really bad news. thank you very much for your attention. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> good afternoon. that certainly was frightening but thank you very much for sharing that with us. i want to thank jennifer for having me here. i have to think my repeated appearances here is a vibrant example of the phrase "hope over experience." i think we need to face this square on so i will talk about

some of the other things and talk about what he talked about it in greater depth. i think to be an understatement if you are following the news that the world is unsettled. worse, the threats to u.s. interests and our security are growing. one could reasonably argue that the world is more dangerous today than at any time in the generation. if we are complacent about these threats, we could pay a very big price. let me tell you about my major concerns. i will talk a little more about isis. everybody knows who that is -- the islamic state. we are not dealing with a terrorist group. we are dealing with a terrorist army. we are talking about 10 to 15,000 committed jihadists working together for a singular cause. i was reading today that number may be small considering the successes they have had recently

in iraq. they are drawing more people in. there are thousands of these who are classified as foreign fighters, people from outside of iraq or syria. i have seen numbers and it is very hard to figure this out that there are foreign fighters with isis from as many as 50 to 70 countries around the world. is roughly between 190 to 200 countries or states in the world today. in fact, you can say with this isis group, there are more terrorist in any one place at any one time than we have ever seen before and that includes pre-9/11 afghanistan. that is frightening stuff. they have taken a large swath of

land which includes iraq and syria. they've established the muslim faith, the caliphate. they have left the trail of death, destruction, and depravity in their wake. these guys are so bad that al qaeda has disavowed them. can you believe that? we are talking about almost 13 years ago. that is how bad this group is. it has america in its crosshairs. the press has reported recently and people have been talking about for quite some time that isis has been, has training camps in iraq and syria. their headquarters and capital is in syria. they have been establishing training camps, not only did teach the terrorist arts of those who will fight for the syrian regime or the iraqi government, but also to train foreign fighters to return to their native lands to undertake acts of terror at some point.

recently, about a week ago, an unnamed u.s. intelligence official -- i believe this article was in "the washington post" -- said that they believe isis is trying to establish cells in europe to undertake terrorist attacks and potentially the united states. if you hear with the u.s. government is saying publicly, you can imagine there is probably a lot of other stuff they are not saying because of intelligence sources and methods. isis has said they plan to raise al qaeda's flag over the white house. i think we need to take them for their word.

of course, syria is part of this problem. in my opinion, syria today is the epicenter of the violent islamic movement of the world today. no question about it. tens of thousands of committed individuals have gone there. it is a magnet for terrorist wannabes. the fbi said publicly they are tracking at least 100 americans who of gone to syria and perhaps iraq to fight. that has been already at least one american suicide bomber in syria. the brits will tell you because they are very concerned about the individual that undertook

the act against the american journalist. they are following at least 400 british citizens would've gone to syria. they cannot sell because people do not go to see. get their passports stamped and return home. to go to jordan or turkey. and that they enter syria. there are 3000 europeans would've gone to syria and iraq to fight. there are many across the globe. when you think about europe, think about the fact that many of those people have passports and are able to come back to europe and then travel to the united states after that. syria has been involved in a terrible situation for many years -- three plus years of civil war, 150,000 people have died. the home of isis is there as well as other hardened al qaeda groups. there is another group. they were most recently infamous for the fact they were -- you remember this a couple of weeks

ago, they were talking about if you are coming out of europe, you had to turn on before boarding a plane -- we forget about the terrorist plot that never happened. it may surprise you to know there has been as many as 60 terrorist plots against the united states since 9/11. a few of those have been successful. they are terrible things. these terrorist have been able to bring these things to fruition. we have the boston bombers, couple of recruiters killed by islamists in arkansas. we had that one spark away from

setting off an suv in times square. there have been 60. some people were told you had to turn off your cell phone or computer because what was going on -- that al qaeda was in the arabian peninsula and planning to put explosives inside a cell phone or inside a computer to put it on an aircraft bound to the united states and blow it up. i don't know if that threat has been lifted. that is what we are dealing with. it is this group that they are dealing with in syria. they were going to be the operatives. the massive bomb maker is in yemen. i will talk about him now. he is the underwear bomber guy. a second plot where we actually

penetrated al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and walked off with the device before it could be used. this is the group of a bomber that was involved in the surgically implantation of explosives into human beings. in fact, i don't know if this is true, the story is that a syrian planted a bomb inside of his brother, send him to saudi arabia, he met with a saudi prince and was meant to kill him in a suicide bombing. his brother died in the bombing and i believe two bodyguards but the prince was not killed. this has happened already. this is what we're up against.

also syria, people forget about iraq is syria's best ally. hezbollah is also fighting there to protect the regime in damascus. there is no end to this conflict. it will continue to serve as a terrorist training ground for some time to come. some of these terrorists at some point may decide not to stay in

the caliphate isis and return home. who knows what they will do then? we talked a little bit about iran. their fighting in both iraq and syria. there are operatives involved in the fight today. they're nervous about what is going on because it is a sunni group. iran is a persian country. iran's rise will be curtailed by the loss of an ally in damascus or a loss of ally in baghdad.

these two fights are must wins. iran has ambitions in that part of the world and these two countries as well as others are key to that. unfortunately, iran's nuclear program has been little slowed. maybe the centrifuges are not being used as much but they have compiled enough uranium to turn it into a higher-grade uranium. while these negotiations are going on, iran has time to work on its weaponization of this material. it has time to perfect delivery vehicles. the u.s. government publicly has not moved off the fact that they said a few years ago that iran will have a missile capable of reaching the united states by 2015. that is next year. they can put a satellite into space. they probably have been helping the north koreans do that as well because they followed iran and that capability. all of you are probably too young to remember because you probably read it in e-book. sputnik, 1957. when the soviets but that little satellite into space we were very unhappy about that. it was a public relations disaster for the united states as the soviets had bested us scientifically and technically. in the balance of the pentagon, the dr. strangelove there, really concerned. they knew if he could put a satellite into space and a significant payload into space or orbit, you can put a warhead anywhere. the soviets actually beat us in the race. same thing here. iranians started out with the

peaceful side ally program and eventually, if they wish to, develop an intercontinental ballistic missile program. the intelligence community believes that maybe soon as next year. afghanistan -- another thing we have in them talking about but as you know, there are 30,000 americans fighting there. i worry -- what i really worry is what we're seeing in iraq is what we will see in afghanistan in the coming years. i didn't talk a lot about iraq but it has not gone well since u.s. forces left at the end of 2011. i worry that is what we will see in afghanistan. we are reducing the troops. they will be totally gone. we may have an interim force. we are waiting for new president to get on board and have some political problems with vote counting in everything. we are looking for a bilateral security agreement which we never achieved with iraq which is why the forces left at one time. if we do not get that, we will not have any forces. if we stay, the president is looking at 10,000 troops but they will be all be gone by 2016 regardless of the conditions on the ground. unfortunately, we think about as we draw down the afghan forces will stand up. we are drawing down, afghan forces are standing up but

violence is also up. we are dealing with some really tough actors. we are talking about not only al qaeda, but the taliban and also the network which is probably the most active and difficult insurgents we are dealing with. my view is if afghanistan could return to its pre-9/11 state, that is a place where terrorists can plan, train, and operate and that is not good news for us. equally troubling to me is that afghanistan if you think about the geography could be used as a safe haven by pakistan taliban. they can unsettle the pakistani government. pakistan, we haven't heard much about them lately either. pakistan is a country with a nuclear arsenal of more than 100 million nuclear weapons. we know some of these groups

like al qaeda would like to get their hands on some of those nuclear weapons and there has are nuclear weapons and there has been some concern about their arsenal. i am not in the circles where they are talking about these things but i know there has been tremendous amount of concern in the last thing we want to see is have al qaeda or anyone else get their hands on a nuclear weapon. frank covered this stuff but i think the al qaeda or offshoot of them or affiliate, that threat is growing. i talked about al qaeda in the arabian peninsula in yemen. up until isis gained prominence, i would say that they were the most dangerous group we faced. i mentioned some other plots -- the underwear plot, the printer cartridges, they have the best bomb maker. we have libya, tunisia. and they were responsible for what happened in benghazi. nigeria, we heard about them in the terrible kidnapping of these young schoolgirls. they are also involved in a lot of terrorist acts against the government. somalia. another group we are particularly worried about because the fbi will tell you that the number of somali-americans have gone there

to fight. there has been a long-standing concern about will they return to the united states and will we know if they have gone and be able to do something about it if we need to? many of these groups are working together, especially the ones in africa. another concern is that each one of these groups will try to outdo each other in a drive to gather more foot soldiers, funds, and publicity. isis is the most high visibility terrorist group out there now. will you see funding go that way, foot soldiers go that way. these other groups who also have agendas will want to steal some of that away from them so there will be some rivalry and they may do some things that they won't try before to bring that publicity in their direction. another thought, the idea that their activities, these terrorist group activities like the ones i mentioned -- they are

happening very far away. people say it is just a regional thing. that can change in one moment. that can go from just something in dealing with the country you are dealing with, the government to becoming a transnational or international terrorist threat, including targeting the united states. russia. russia is on a roll, isn't it? took crimea this year. wasn't much of a response. it is supporting insurgency in eastern ukraine today. it sent what they are calling aid trucks across the border into ukraine. ukrainian government is basically saying it is an invasion. the military trucks have been painted gray and they were not escorted by the international committee of the red cross. who knows what is in those trucks because they have not

been inspected. russia also has as many as 40,000 troops, combat ready troops across the border from ukraine it can certainly go in at any time they want. is a much more capable force them ukrainian army. frank would be the person to talk about this -- the u.s. government has come out and said russia is violating the treaty. a regan treaty you probably worked on. it is about forces in europe and now we find out that russia, we believe, russia has violated that treaty, that arms control treaty. they have been threatening nato allies in recent years. russian president vladimir putin plans to restore his russia's cold war era power and prowess in my estimation and it is something we should be very concerned about. in asia, north korea. we have a new, young and enigmatic leader.

he is not the reformer we thought he may be. he is turning out to be quite hard-line. my concern is that he wants to make his mark on the world. he doesn't have the credentials that has grandfather has. it was somebody who was involved in the korean war or his father kim jong-il who had held the reins of power for many years under his father. this is the grandson. he doesn't feel like he has the credentials, the chops with the military, with the korean workers party to perhaps hold that party so he has been involved with a lot of purges. the concern is you may be

involved in a misperception or mistake that could lead to some serious consequences on the korean peninsula. he has an increasingly robust nuclear weapons program. north korea has said three nuclear attempts. there is rumor of a fourth test but it hasn't happened yet. last year, he was able to put a satellite into space harking back to what i was talking about with iran. we believe north korea has the capability to put it into the convention until ballistics somewhere on the west coast of the united states. at some point in the future, it could become more accurate and have a longer range. it will be even a greater threat to us. let me talk about china lastly. i am getting the hook here. there is so much to talk about. beyond the united states, or he

has the potential to shape this entry more than china. any of you keeping up on the news, you know that. china is increasingly powerful whether you are talking militarily, politically, or economically. in my opinion, china would like to replace the united states in the pacific, if not globally. i think it is taking steps to do that. it has already thrown its weight around increasingly in territorial disputes in the east and south china seas with u.s. allies -- the philippines and japan. many china analysts believe they are testing american result in the pacific. unfortunately, this perception and miscalculations could lead

to dire consequences. i think as china's confidence grows, the rivalry will only intensify with the united states. bottom line -- we are living in an increasingly dangerous world where u.s. interests face growing threats. is my view that a failure to proactively rise to the challenges with international leadership, diplomatic resolve, economic vitality and military strength could mean some very dark days ahead. fortunately, that choice is ours. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think we were supposed to move this. is that possible? we have a few minutes of time for questions. i went much longer than i was supposed to. we will take any questions we have time for. is there a microphone somewhere in the back? great.

>> [indiscernible] can you hear me now? one of the things that surprised me since 9/11, and i thought we would be vulnerable to it, would be individual bombing attacks in lots of areas like we saw in the mideast and southeast asia. how, we have avoided that here or is a factor that it is a plan for later on on a much grander scale? >> it is a great question. the issue, in part as peter said, they have actually been trying to do attacks.

fortunately, it has been good work on the part of our first lines of defense to prevent that from happening. some places, we have been bloody lucky. i happen to think another thing is at work and it goes back to that arc i talked about of mohammed's life and the model that the muslim brotherhood follows. i think there is a very strong sense on the part of those in the brotherhood's apparatuses in this country. there are scores, if not hundreds of them by the way. almost every muslim american organization that you hear about, notably outfits like the council of american islamic relations or the islamic society of north america, are muslim brotherhood front organizations. i think their view is do not engage in those acts of violence. it is premature. it up only anger the americans and make our job more difficult.

i think that is at work with some. not suspect peter would agree with me -- we are on borrowed time. the more we indulge this kind of behavior, the more we leave the borders porous. the more we signal weakness. the sharia interpretation of that behavior is the time has come to go violent, to make them feel subdued. >> i have a question for each of our speakers. frank, this is a question a response to what you said about some of the muslim brotherhood's actions to get into american culture. you talked about interfaith conversations. in our clery, it is increasingly reaching out. is that something that should be resisted and how can that message to be delivered to our clergy?

the other question is for peter. one of the major groups that you omitted from your discussion was talking about what is going on in israel. the big client of iran, hamas, has distracted attention away from the iranian nuclear program and a lot of people that are interested in israeli politics believe that was the goal of that. is that something you believe is well? >> i think that was a good point. i couldn't talk about everything. very disturbed by the fact that we had a friendly state in israel fighting a terrorist group today. that is something that we could see down the road won't be talk about isis. terrorist groups taking on

states. my interpretation of what hamas did was an act of desperation. they have been a complete failure in the gaza strip and unfortunately the palestinian people are being held hostage to their inability to govern and their policies. this is obviously something we need to be concerned about. hamas has fallen out with the government in damascus, the syrian government who has been a strong supporter of them because they are actually siding with the violent islamists in syria. iran is still very much concerned and israel is worried about opening up the borders because of what is going to come across those borders. even egypt has closed the crossings because of those concerns. i cannot speak for the government is israel but my

interpretation is humanitarian issues -- the concern is that weapons will come in. we have seen these large number of rockets fired into israel which the iron dome missile defense system, something we should be thinking about when i talk about icbms, work tremendously. those rockets were fired indiscriminately at civilian targets. it was only because of the capabilities of those systems that the u.s. helped with that israel was able to stay protected. it was such a lopsided military engagement. yes, hamas is a major problem and a friend of iran. my cents and was an act of desperation because hamas having lost the muslim brotherhood in egypt did it as an act of desperation but there are many different interpretations. >> i will leave you with one thought about sharia it would be that this really is about power, not about faith.

the problem for the faith community in this country is they are being encouraged to believe it is the other way around or the power has nothing to do about it, it is just about faith. it is really seductive.

you have many people offering unbelievable opportunities to -- not all of them, by any means, but mostly the ones working this particular line of civilization, and deeply imbued with the sharia agenda. and interestingly enough, one of the first things they do -- and this happened, by the way, in the vatican back in june or july. one of the things they do is go into arabic to constant -- to consecrate the space they are in to a law -- olla. .he main thing is this if we find people of faith amounts todo what

cover for these people, it will be just one more successful inroad they are making and keeping us witless about what they are up to and making ourselves much more defenseless against them. thank you for your question. >> this is kind of a basic question. if you are going to prepare for being off the grid, what books would you recommend, what websites, or what quick tips? i am for being prepared and for people being self-reliant and responsible. don't get me wrong. to tell you that unless you perhaps live out here and have access to fresh water and a means of growing some

food, it is unlikely you will be able to persist very long without help coming from someplace else. think about this. if the kind of devastation we saw with katrina or with hurricane sandy had not been localized -- they were fairly wide areas, yes, but it's fairly thelized -- and the rest of country was intact and able to come to the help of those who lot conflict did, not a more people would have made it. and that is my concerned about this. and if i could leave you with one other thought on this grid issue, take a look at the book guilty knowledge. it is about what to the u.s. government knows about the vulnerability of the electric grid but refuses to fix. to dok you would be moved

the single most important thing i can recommend, and that is get a hold of people who have the ability to fix it now. have to talkn't about what we need to do to survive before it is too late. there is some legislation throughits way slowly congress. you're a collector grid operators -- many of you are in companiesstors that are big users of electricity. their board ofn directors. maybe your neighbor is on their board of directors. there are a lot of ways to help. .com.to secure the grid but the name of the game and the answer to your question is let's stop this from happening rather than trying to cope with it

after it does. >> just one point, this is a very serious threat. one of the things frank was not able to get into is where the threat comes from. there are concerns about cyber terrorism. we have three electrical grids in the united states. we know terrorists have looked that this issue, but also nationstates. china and russia have mapped the ..s. electrical grid if there were ever a dustup over territory or a war, you can imagine the lights would be shut off in the united states. they may be involved in sending troops into battle when there are planes in the sky and hospitals don't have electricity. this is a very serious national security issue, and because of the -- i wish we could have -- i didn't get into this because of time, but it is a huge threat,

whether it is warfare, espionage, or even the potential for cyber terrorism that could let in the grid, the financial system, et cetera, et cetera. i think we better stop there so you can stay on schedule. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] c-span's american history tour continues with a focus on native americans, beginning with the battle of little big horn. look at the attempted take land previously promised to native americans and how that led to the conflict now known as general custer's last stand. here is a preview. >> when your americans come out west they want to turn the sioux and cheyenne, the arapahoe and the blackfoot, the navajo and the crow, they want to turn them into christian farmers. sitting bull is not about to bend over and scratch and claw

at the ground with a hoe to try to make a living, and crazy horse is not going to surrender his pony and hook it up to a plow. they are hunters and their warriors. and is their vision. 18 73,in the mid-1870's, there is an economic crisis. the stock market crashes. the banking system rolls over. the panic of 1873. people are losing their jobs, their life savings. there's is 20% unemployment. ring a bell? it's tough times in america. ulysses s. grant is going to have to ramp up the economy or he is not going to get reelected . he needs an economic stimulus package. george custer is going to provide it. golden the black hills. esther leads an expedition into south the kota. --re is gold in the black

custer leads an expedition into south dakota. there is gold in the black hills. minors, prospectors, entrepreneurs pour into the hills overnight. deadwood, three or 4000 people real quick. is an illegalhem alien because the black hills , guaranteede sioux by the treaty of 1868, a white man's promise. no white people allowed in the black hills. while bill hickok shot in the back of the head playing cards at the number 10 saloon in deadwood. he is an illegal alien. so as calamity jane. the sioux call the hills sacred ground. the hills are black with timber. president grant sees an opportunity. he wants to get at the gold, roebuck the economy, create jobs, put money in the treasury,

-- build up the economy, create treasury,money in the so he is going to try to buy the black hills for $7 million. not for sale. you don't sell the ground your ancestors walked on. and now their bones lie beneath. not for sale. >> c-span's american history tour focusing on native americans will also include a tour of the mexican pueblo and a 9000 year-old native american pictographs. also on c-span two, book tvs in-depth interview with ron paul. on c-span three, american history tv with more from our archival film series, railamerica. all tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span network.

this weekend to the director of the congressional budget office will be our guest on newsmakers. he will talk about the cbo's latest report issued this weekend will also talk jobs, wages, and the impact of the health care law. newsmakers, sunday on c-span. earlier this year, conservative groups alleged the irs was targeting their tax exempt status and they called on congress to investigate. coming up, a closer look at the investigation and some of the hearings with former irs official lois lerner, followed by house floor debate on whether to hold ms. lerner in contempt of congress. later, the irs commissioner missingng about e-mails. first, tea party groups. in february, the founder of the alabama tea party testified before a house subcommittee that they were targeted by the irs

after filing for tax exempt status. this portion of the hearing is about an hour. >> good morning. my name is catherine. i'm the chairman of a nonprofit organization. thank you for the opportunity to share my story. at the outset, it must be said that it is a story with the central theme that is shared by countless of thousands of other americans who have not yet heard from, though i pray they will be. citizens just like me are being targeted right administration willing to take any action necessary to silence opposition. i am an average american who prior to 2009 had never been active in the processes of government. but after volunteering to work

in the polls in 2009, i saw procedural problems. mr. they group that grew into a national movement. my life before getting involved and spoke out for the government stands in contrast to the life i now lead. as a small business person, participating in my church, the government collected my taxes and left me and my family. i found myself a target of this federal government. once i helped found the king street patriots. after filing forms to establish tax-exempt organizations, an assortment of entities including law enforcement agencies and congressman cummings came knocking on my door. in two decades, my husband and i

had never been audited were investigated. we had never dealt with any government agency outside of filing our annual tax returns. that changed after we submitted nonprofit applications. since the filing in 2010, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations, my family and i have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry firm -- from federal agencies. in 2012, my business was subject to inspection by osha. on a select occasion when neither my husband and i were present. the agency wrote that it found nothing significant in violation of don't find us money thousand dollars.

violation, it still find us $20,000. the fbi contacted my nonprofit organization on six separate instances. they dropped all matters and redacted -- there is no other remarkable event. there is no other reason to explain how, for decades, i went unnoticed that now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination against my life. -- into an against all facets of my life, both personal and private. bear in mind these events were occurring while the irs was subjecting me to questions about my political aspirations. multiple rounds of abusive inquiries and requests for every facebook and twitter status i had ever posted. the contents of what i said and everywhere i intended to speak.

demands to know groups i had spoken to. the answers to these kinds of questions are not of interest to the typical analyst but are of interest to a political machine. the government attacked me because of my political beliefs, but i refused to be cast as a victim. not to the irs, or any other agency of victim has no options. -- i am not a victim, because of victim has no options. i do have options and i intend to use them to the fullest extent of my capabilities. as an american citizen, i still believe in freedom of speech. i will continue to speak out across this country. i will continue to press in every legal way possible as i did by filing suit against the irs. no american citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. after all the tyranny and things

that have been done to my organization and my family, many people have quit. -- would have quit, and many americans have quit. i have heard over and over that people are afraid to tell their stories. but know this. my experience at the hand of this government over the last five years has made me more determined than ever to say, i will not retreat. i will not surrender. i will not be intimidated and i will not ask permission to exercise my constitutional rights. i have come before you on behalf of americans just like me asking for a solution to end this ugly chapter. of political intimidation. there was a time when people were encouraged to participate in the government, not targeted because of it. request of the irs

to withdraw the proposal to limit speech. it will effectively codify into law the things that -- nonprofit -- the very thing that brings me here today. of those regulations pass, nonprofit organizations across the country will be destroyed. no american regardless of their political affiliation should support the silencing of political speech. beyond ending the proposed irs regulations, i ask you i implore , you to pass a law that protects all citizens of this country. from the increasing use of such abusive practices. pass a law that exposes government officials who trample on the rights of ordinary citizen. don't allow them to cower behind the veil of secrecy. send the president a bill that makes public all communications between government agencies.

restrictions, redaction's no , selectively released files. give us a transparent process. protect the people. restore liberty to the people. we will not be silent. thank you for its opportunity. -- this opportunity, mr. chairman and committee members. >> thank you. god bless you. we appreciate you being here today. you referenced the proposed rule. i would like to enter into the record 80 letter we sent to the new commissioner of the irs. we highlight some of the things you reference in your testimony. specifically, how this rule was being prepared before the court came into existence. how lois lerner was involved in putting the rule together. i would ask for permission to enter his into the record. without objection, that will take place. ms. mitchell, you are now recognized. >> thank you.

very much for the opportunity to appear here today. i am a practicing attorney. i deal with the irs and have dealt with the irs on a daily help people obtain the tax exempt status within the tax code. i want to make three points here today. i will be happy to answer questions. the irs scandal is real. it is not pretend. israel. number two, the irs scandal is not just a boneheaded bunch of bureaucrats in some remote office on contrary to what the president told the american people on sunday. number three, the irs scandal is not over. it is continuing to this day, and the department of justice investigation is a sham. it is a nonexistent

investigation. with regard to point number one, let me tell you in one sentence with the irs scandal is. of someat the direction political elites in washington, not in cincinnati, but washington, took what had been of decades a process reviewing applications for annexationus that might take up to three or four weeks. they converted that process into one that took up to three and four years and in some cases is still not over. line agents in the irs had their works -- work disrupted by washington. in 2010, and application was

filed and did not attain the status until we sent it to the irs. in september, they granted it. the bush not have to sue to get their tax-exempt status. presidentlerner and obama accused agents in cincinnati of being responsible, that is a lie. i knew when lois lerner said admitted010, when she that it was happening, after we knew it was happening, we knew we were targeted, it is that she finally admitted it, but i knew it had not happened in cincinnati, is the first time i became aware of it was with a group i represent. we filed for tax-exempt status in 2009. besides cashing our check, for a filing fee, we did not hear from the irs until june of 2010. we did not hear from cincinnati.

we heard from washington. .hat group did one thing it lobbied against obamacare in the fall of 2009 and 2010, something that a in an organization is permitted to spend 100% of its expenditures doing. we did not get the tax exempt status for that organization until july of 2013. when i took on the representation of catherine and the organizations in the fall of 2011, a year after she had sent her application to the irs, and she has heard nothing, and when i talked to the energy to the dash to the agent in cincinnati saying we are going to supplement the application to try to help make it easier for you to process, he told me at a task force in washington. we cannot do anything. until we hear back from

washington. number three, this scandal is not over. the line has not -- the lighting has not thought. i represent one group who applied in december of 2010. they still do not have their status. there are lies upon lies in this of the -- ugly cap said. the commissioner lied to congress, i believe it was this committee in march of 2012 when he said there was no targeting. of they communications irs to members of congress who inquired about the status of applications and whether there was targeting. how many communications were there in which agents of the irs told congress that there was no targeting. those are lies. lying to congress is a crime. when the department of justice refused to investigate who it

was who was responsible for releasing the confidential kochmation of industries -- we see the irs to try to get to the bottom of why our confidential tax information to oure available political opponents. where is the fbi is investigating -- that is a criminal offense great it is an offense for the irs to release the confidential donors of the republican governors public policy council. conservative organizations whose donor information was released, that was a criminal offense. is investigating that. finally, allies -- it is a felony to lie to a federal agency. and yet the irs on the day after thanksgiving in proposing these regulations, the agent from the

irs who transmitted those who proposed regulations in the formal quote tatian says there are no related documents. that is what it says on the website. related documents am a non-raid yet i have submitted a request on behalf of the tea party patriots. they said we cannot get you those documents until april. the public comment period closes february 27. there are no documents but it will take them until april to get them to us. that is a lie. they lied when they transmitted those regulations and said the purpose of the regulations -- there are too many lies, mr. chairman. it is time to get to the truth. it's time for the fbi investigate the criminal acts. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you so much for inviting me here to speak. i can't tell you how much i appreciate you holding this hearing. i am in absolute grief for my country. 8 months ago we outlined our cases about the abuse. we learned details about the irs leaking out confidential donor information. when proven, this is a felony. we learned of constitutional violations. we witnessed violations of the internal revenue code. lois lerner lied to the american people, blaming the scandal on a few rogue agents knowing well that the targeting involved irs offices across the country

including her own office in washington, d.c. lois lerner took the fifth for a reason. yet no one has been brought to justice. because of that, i have to ask, how many people in congress are taking this seriously? since my last testimony, i still have not been contacted by the fbi. the fbi told "the wall street journal" no one would be charged with a crime. but they have not even interviewed the witnesses. are you going to let them get away with this? i must say this again. my government has forgotten its place. it appears that many in washington fear regular citizens standing up for constitutional limited government. why in america is it considered a threat to study the founding documents and advocate for

responsible spending? why is giving out copies of the constitution, discussing pending legislation, or creating legislative scores cards a threat to this administration? these activities are viewed as subversive. otherwise, they would not have tried to stop us. in my previous testimony, i ask playing my application was accurate. we easily qualified for status. yet that did not stop them from committing information they were not entitled to. the information they demanded from us had nothing to do with our tax status. why must the irs know who is coming to our meetings? why did they need to have copies of every speech ever given? why did they need to know who our donors were? there is clearly something wrong with this. the targeting of the tea party and other groups is disturbing. i am offended that a member of

senate would continually request that the irs go after americans like me. never have this government tried to muzzle americans for their political views. the governments of third world nations intimidate and harass dissenting citizens. it does not happen in the land of the free until recently. it is shocking and infuriating. most troubling of all, congress has not stopped this. it has gotten worse. during these past eight months, congress has sat by while the irs -- attempt to shut us down completely. one of the most sacred rights is freedom of speech. the irs wants to strike out to 226 years of history with a keystroke.

we are not allowed to use the words "oppose," "vote," "defeat," or "reject." we are not allowed to mention on our website even the name of a candidate who is running 30 days before a primary or 60 days. before a general election. we are not allowed to mention the name of a political party. no more voter registration drives. no more conducting nonpartisan get-out-the-vote drives. no more creating voter guides. we can't even host candidates for debate or forums. our officers and leaders cannot speak about incumbents, legislation, and voting records

without jeopardizing our tax status. does this sound like the land of the free? the political targeting carried out by the irs as a fundamental transformation of the america we all grew up in. i'm not here as a victim. i refuse to be a victim. i am a born-free american woman. these abuses of power put all americans' liberties at risk. history shows unaddressed abuses of power lead to greater abuses of power. i am looking to you to restore the faith that you do represent us. we implore you to use the full force of the law to stop the abuses immediately and bring to justice all those who carried the orders out. i want the federal government to know and the irs to know that you will not divide us. you will not conquer us. and we will not be silenced. thank you. >> distinguished members of the

subcommittee, on behalf of the american center for law and justice, thank you for allowing me to participate. i represent 41 organizations. my first job was in the office me to participate. of chief counsel for the irs. i am proud of that heritage in my legal career. i'm disappointed with what the irs is doing today, i have prepared comments. i would like those to be part of the record. i'm going to deviate from those because of a revelation. i want to give you information about the progressive groups versus the conservative groups. this the irs statistics. 104 conservative organizations

were targeted. they were asked 1552 questions. the average question per group was 15. that did not include the subparts. 48 were approved, an approval rating of 46%. some progressive groups got cut up in the dragnet because of their names. they were asked a total of 43 questions. seven of them were approved. that is 100%. this was not an equal opportunity discrimination. this was targeted discrimination coming from the irs. i want to address that our view is the determination came from the highest ranks of the irs. yesterday, it was brought to the public's attention that an e-mail had been sent by lois lerner, the former head of tax exempt. she pled the fifth amendment.

based on the evidence, if i was her lawyer, i would have told her to plead the fifth. an e-mail was sent to janine cook, associate chief counsel of the irs tax-exempt entities division. it went to victoria, division counsel, tax exempt and government entities division. what was this e-mail? an e-mail "we will work off plan

to devise rules." "off plan." that is very different from saying two rogue agents in cincinnati. if i was lois lerner's attorney, i would've told her to plead the fifth amendment, too. we have 41 clients. in december i was contacted by the u.s. department of justice. they had requested that they might want to, after the first of the year, interview three of our 41 clients. they said they would get back to us after the first of the year. they did. about the same day they got back with us, the announcement about ms. wasserman's political contributions was made public. that was followed up by a statement in "the washington post" that there was no criminal investigation. the lawyer test with dealing with the fbi is a former

assistant u.s. attorney. if there is no criminal investigation, what you need to speak to our clients? they said they would not discuss the investigation. the next question, which is a serious one, the fbi, in desiring to speak with our client, we raised the concern of -- it is not because of her capabilities as a lawyer. she's a career lawyer. you cited the ethics rule. the obligation is not on the department of justice. it is on the lawyer. the lawyer has to avoid the appearance of impropriety. if you are heading up the investigation -- we are assuming she is -- you can't head it up if the public thinks there is even a potential for bias. it was very simple for the department of justice to solve this. they didn't have to ask her

her political position. she has the affirmative obligation to tell her supervisor i could be compromised and it would be best if someone from public corruption take a look at it. saying that for the record so we are clear on the evidence. >> she could have said that. that is my hunch. >> i don't want to impugn her integrity. i don't think it is fair to do that. she did have the obligation. let me say this. the irs attempt now to change the rules falls on two systematic problems. one, you don't get to change the rules for a post-hoc justification of your prior bad and illegal conduct. number two, remember that the acting commissioner proposed a

scenario where he would do a self certification if they would self certified -- no more than 40% of their activity was deemed political. my clients did not exercise that. if some client of some lawyer did exercise that, because there were more than 300 groups, how would you like to be the lawyer that told their clients to exercise the 40% rule and then nine weeks later, the irs sould say they had just changed the definition of political activity. you don't get to change your rules in the middle of the game to justify your bad behavior. >> i recognize the vice chair of the committee. >> thanks to the witnesses. this targeting issue is concerning. understanding the government, human nature, people are apt to abuse their power. what is even more concerning for me is once you have an admission of that, somebody taking the

fifth amendment, there is a zero interest in rectifying this. and what the irs and fbi have done, i agree, it is a total sham. the american people are not getting answers. you mentioned this in your statement -- you had 20 years in business and zero issues with any agencies. you filed for status, and you are visited by how many different agencies after starting organization? >> the fbi, the irs -- >> atf. >> osha, a texas branch of the epa. >> you mentioned you will keep fighting. i see that. when you have to deal with this, you have a business and other things. you are trying to impact the

country and a positive direction. when you deal with these agencies, it makes you less effective in pursuing your message. am i right in saying that? >> it gives one pause. to think there is interagency collusion against private citizens. >> do think people similarly situated to you may look at what happens to people who speak out and say, i don't want to deal with that. i will remain silent. in other words, this type of targeting can chill political speech? >> that is absolutely the case. >> what was the irs asking you to provide? it seems these were very invasive and intrusive questions. >> they sent me a list of 80 questions, an eight-page document. they wanted to know volunteers' names. >> lois lerner has disclosed --

a lot of times it is not kept confidential. >> they wanted to have copies of every speech that was ever given, credentials of who the speakers were. they wanted to know if any of our members or volunteers were going to run for office. if so, what office. this was the 2012 election cycle. they wanted to know any communications i have had with any legislative body, even within my own representatives. they wanted e-mails, phone contacts. what i was saying to my legislators. >> a lot of people getting involved in politics for the first time, you're seeing all these questions. do you think some people look at that and say, i don't want to have to deal with that?

has this caused some people to silence themselves? >> we have a group in alabama who got their letter and said, we are not going to do this. they stopped. >> do agree with the idea that they were targeting everybody, liberal groups as well? that is false in your judgment? >> it is false. the records do not substantiate it. that is one of the things people have been using to discredit or thwart the investigation. i will give you one example. there was a report released by -- published in "usa today." an interim document that listed at 62 organizations that were on the watch list at the irs. the number that was calculated was 83% were conservative. this is a document prepared in november 2011. king street patriots is listed on there. it says, "likely approval."

"likely approval." also on the list is one of the few liberal groups, progress texas. references in the comments that this is an organization that appears to engage in anti-rick perry propaganda. november 2011. fast-forward -- progress texas gets tax-exempt status by may of 2012. king street patriots did not get tax-exempt that is until two months ago. >> what the administration is trying to do with the c4, is it safe to say if that is in effect that would disproportionately affect conservative groups? a lot of the labor unions and environmental groups would not

be affected by that? >> correct, a lot of those are exempt under different provisions. in that regard, and with regard to the questioning aspect, any chilling effect, we have a client, a pro-life organization that is one of the ones targeted. the questions to them were so draconian, that this is what they asked. this is the irs. the presentation of viewpoints are unsupported by facts is a significant portion of their communications. this is coming from an irs agent. the approach used in the organization's presentation is not aimed at developing an

understanding because it does not consider their background or training. who gave the irs the authority to say this? understanding because it does how is it that the president can say there is not a smidgen of corruption when the documents -- some of these are signed by lois lerner -- how could they possibly say this? the thing i don't understand is as the president was making his statements, as members of this committee were making statements, we had the documents in our possession from offices all over the country, coast to coast. say there is not a smidgen of with the e-mail that was released yesterday, we know how high up the chain. i would urge the committee, when you talk about associate chief counsels, divisional counsels, this is as high as it gets. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said at the outset, i am deeply troubled regarding irs employees and proper handling of tax-exempt status.

however, i am encouraged that senior leadership has been removed. in december, the senate confirmed a new commissioner. he has pledged his committment to cooperating with congress. i will look forward to working with him. while i look forward to hearing the concerns of the witnesses, i fear the committee is presenting only one side of the story. committee's 10-month-long investigation has uncovered no evidence they are targeting groups for political reasons. not one single witness has told us the white house was involved. the deputy inspector general identified no evidence of political motivation after a review of more than 5000 e-mails.

russell george was the one whose report sparked the hearings. i personally asked him that question. did you find evidence of political motivation for what was going on? he said no. as we have learned in the transcribed interview, it was a self-described conservative republican who oversaw irs employees who developed the inappropriate criteria for examination. you were helpful with some statistics. i wanted to ask you about that. you mentioned 104 conservative groups targeted? >> this is from the report of the irs dated july 29. 104 conservative organizations were targeted. >> seven progressive groups? >> all of which received their tax exemption. >> does it give the total number of applications?

104 groups of conservatives targeted. how many applied? >> i think the number was 283. the applications, the justification for this, was an increase in applications. it was actually a decrease. >> does it give the number of progressive groups? no? >> the one i have -- the report i have in front of me is the one that has the seven. >> thank you. the committee's investigation in this matter revealed that the irs sought out liberal groups with the words "progressive" or "occupy." russell george admitted he failed to inform the committee he was aware of progressive groups receiving similar treatment as conservative groups.

ms. mitchell, you have favored us with your testimony this morning. we just found out about you monday afternoon. we didn't have much time to read about you. i saw your extensive tv, which is online. it has you as a partner at a law firm here in washington. >> that's right. >> it says you are a member of the firm's political law practice. is that correct? >> correct. >> the firm has a taxation practice different from the political law practice. but you are in the political law practice. you have served as legal counsel to be republican senatorial committee. am i correct? >> yes.

>> you have personally served as legal counsel to the republican national committee. >> correct. >> you served as a legislator in oklahoma. would that be as a republican legislature? >> i was a democrat then, until i realized they had become the party of government, not the people. >> ok. >> just for the record, not all of us would agree with that. we are entitled to our political views, too. >> in your political law practice, how many progressive groups do you represent? >> none. it doesn't work that way. >> you testified you represent tea party groups. >> i do. >> it works that way. >> that's right. as i say to people, in this law practice, you can play for usc and notre dame. >> how many occupy groups do you

represent? >> i have represented the aclu. >> in light that the majority have excluded democratic members and staff with in person meetings, serious concerns persist about the impartiality of the work of the majority on this committee. sadly, only tea party groups are represented. one of them has already testified before congress. our staff was unable to identify a minority witness on such short notice. this is not a balanced hearing. this committee is charged with conducting oversight of the federal government. as members of congress, we must exercise that authority in a responsible manner.

going forward, i want to see us working together to conduct responsible oversight. i yield back. >> first of all, ms. mitchell doesn't represent progressive groups because it sounds like they didn't need it. they were 7 for 7. they had nine days' notice. they could have gotten a witness. maybe you could've gotten one of the seven that was approved. what the committee, the minority did have time to do was write a letter urging me not to pursue having barbara come here and answer the questions. you had time for that. but you did not to find someone to come testify? i recognize the gentleman from south carolina.

>> thank you. i am interested in having a balance investigation than a balanced hearing. did you hear the president say there was not a smidgen of corruption? >> i have heard that he said that. >> did you hear the president say there was not a smidgen of correuption? let me translate that. "smidgen" is not a legal term. i assume he meant criminality. how was he able to make that conclusion? neither of you have been interviewed by the bureau? >> no, sir. >> three have been interviewed of his 41 clients. or were asked to be interviewed. >> none interviewed yet. >> zero of 41 have been interviewed. the president says there is not a smidgen of criminality or corruption. do either of you remember seeing a witness named lois lerner sitting at the very table you all are sitting at?

do you remember her invoking her fifth amendment privilege, the same privilege she targeted some of your groups for educating people about, like the constitution, the one she availed herself the second she was exposed to criminal investigation? how can the president say there is not a smidgen of criminality when lois lerner invoked the fifth amendment? 41 witnesses have not been interviewed including the two here right now. how can he draw that conclusion? >> good question. >> i wish someone, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would ask the president, how can he conclude

that no criminality when lois lerner set in front of them and invoked her privilege against criminality. how do you square that? >> if i may, she invoked her fifth amendment privilege, which she has the right to do, because we know the reason why. it was not as clear as it was made yesterday. she invoked her fifth amendment privilege because she knew, after she made a false statement, she knew that in fact it was her words and her it was her words and her e-mails, off plan, drafting -- and people are asking us what we can do. she said she cannot do anything until she sees the 990's. that was going on while she was redrafting the rules. >> i want to say this. i understand why she invoked her fifth amendment privilege. i don't understand why the president would prejudge an

investigation before any of your clients were interviewed, before either of these two victims, in a criminal sense of the word, before either of these two were interviewed. he has compromised the department of justice, which leads me to this question. there is the option, when you have a compromised investigation and a chief executive who has prejudged the outcome, he has the option of appointing a special counsel. the special counsel regulation

says extradorinary circumstances that further the public interests -- can you think of anything more extraordinary than governments targeting people based on their political beliefs? >> no. i agree with you 100%. i would point to the e-mail of june 14, 2012, which was just released. this shows the need for a special prosecutor. when you asked about the no evidence of politics, let me quote from the e-mail. don't know who is keeping tabs on c4's. i have got my radar up. this seemed interesting. these are coming from the most senior people within the chief counsel's office of the irs, a presidential appointee. at this point, a special prosecutor to evaluate criminal sanctions or criminal law would probably be the best way to go, because i don't think the justice department right now, with due respect to the department, is institutionally incapable of doing this. the question on her legal representation. she has an excellent reputation.

her clients tend to be conservative because that is who her clients tend to be. i am a conservative but i have represented the national democratic policy committee. i don't think is 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? the apology is not accepted. >> mr. chairman, in conclusion, i believe the ranking subcommittee member said there are 13 people assigned. 13 people assigned in six 13 people assigned in six months have not had time to interview a single solitary one of her clients. they have not had time to interview either of these two witnesses.

yet the chief executive, the president of the united states, has already prejudged the outcome of the investigation. either it is ongoing or it is not. it is time for special counsel, mr. chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you for this intriguing >> thank you for this intriguing hearing. i will say, my friend from south carolina, for whom i have great regard -- we have mutual respect -- i will say it ought to trouble a tea party panel and a lawyer that this committee took on a

u.s. citizen, a very sacred principle -- it was enshrined in there because of the experience of our founders with the british. it is a very real right. this committee took upon itself, every member on that side, including my friend from south carolina -- if we can do that to her, we can do that to you. every one of us on the side of the aisle voted not to do that. irrespective of what one may decide of the substance of lois lerner's behavior, we think american citizens are entitled to constitutional protections and that a committee does not have the right to waive that right. listening to the testimony about

a government that is overreaching, i would think you would be concerned about this committee overreaching. but it was not the side that did it. i'm not asking you a question. you made a statement. i am making a statement. your testimony states you believe that -- one of the federal agencies you mentioned is osha. you complained that in 2012, osha inspected your company. which manufacturers metal products. you state they found nothing serious or significant, but issued fines in excess of $20,000. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> the inspection report says they identified 10 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 for molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids, chemical gases, and vapors. mr. chairman, i would ask that the inspection report go into the record. is it your contention those findings were politically motivated because you are seeking tax-exempt status for another entity, that those violations were in fact trivial or not serious in your view? >> when osha came to our shop, they came under a false s.i.c.

classification when neither me or husband were there. they proceeded to interview employees. i would very much welcome everything -- >> my question -- >> the cover letter states that they found -- let me answer. >> i'm going to control the questioning. i'm asking you a simple question. you can have a press conference later were you can speak to your heart's content. i only have five minutes. were these or were these not a serious matter? >> in my opinion and in the cover letter, they were not serious. >> you complained that you were not there. is it the case that it is osha's practice to not give advance warning? that is the whole point of an inspection, to determine whether it a facility is safe or not. to tell you they are coming is to give you a heads-up up to clean up whatever you think is a violation. isn't that their normal practice? >> i don't know what the normal practice is. we complied as we did with every

agency that came over the last three years. >> if it is your testimony you don't know their practice, how are you able nonetheless to conclude that it is politically motivated and had something to do with you seeking tax-exempt status and punishing you for seeking a tax exempt status? >> because in the past three years, after nearly 20 years of being in business and no agency coming to visit us -- the succession of agencies that have now come to us, for all manner of things, begs the question, the statistical probability of what happened to me without would go motivation is staggering. >> i would note for the record, because we are so concerned about the law and making sure there are no violations of the law, are you aware of the fact that it is illegal for the

department called osha to give advance notice? that is a matter of law. >> i was not aware of that but i'm not contending they should have given us notice. i am only observing -- >> but you complained about it. you complained you did not get advance notice. you said you were concerned that neither your husband -- you understand you can't check in advance to see if you will be there. >> nor did we try to do anything to discourage that process. >> i take that at face value. but it is a huge leap, given that, to conclude someone is out to get you. that there is any political motivation whatsoever. osha is following standard operating procedures. >> you are aware that the information -- >> time has expired. in the first 20 years of business, did osha ever visit your place of business? >> no, sir.

>> after you filed the application, they visited? >> yes, sir. >> did the irs ever audit you in the first 20 years? >> no sir. >> once you filed your application, did they visit you? -- >> six times. >> he wants you to believe that is a coincidence. >> i would recognize -- [indiscernible] >> i was just pointing out that in 20 years of business, osha never came to her place of business. the fbi never visited. the gentleman is recognized for

one minute. >> where is the proof, other than you connecting dots that may or may not be connected, that osha was politically motivated? >> i didn't say proof. >> you want us all to believe that by innuendo -- >> 15 times in a two-year timeframe, four different federal agencies. you expect us to believe -- >> i don't expect you to believe anything. you can believe whatever you choose to believe. >> 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. she filed an application.

and subsequently was visited by osha, fbi, atf, and was audited by the irs. >> you should be on the panel, given your views. >> you can see more on our website. www.c-span.org. look continues with lois lerner in march. the former director took the fifth at a house oversight committee chaired i darrell issa. this is 20 minutes.

>> the committee will come to order. we are here today to continue a hearing that began on may 22, 2013, called the irs targeting americans for their political beliefs. the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about how and why the i.r.s. improperly scrutinized certain organizations that applied for tax-exempt status. today we have recalled ms. lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the irs. ms. lerner appeared at the may 22, 2013, hearing you should a subpoena and that subpoena remains in effect.

before we resume our questioning, i'm going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the i.r.s. and professing her innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advance notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement. she stated i have not done

anything wrong. i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner then stated her intention to invoke the fifth amendment, and then in response to a request by ranking member cummings, she confirmed orally the authenticity of a document that was entered into the record. she subsequently reinvoked her she subsequently reinvoked her fifth amendment rights in response to several questions. she then refused to provide any substantive response to those questions. at that hearing, a member of the committee, mr. gowdy, stated that ms. lerner had waived her right to invoke the fifth amendment because she had given voluntary statement professing her innocence. i temporarily excused ms. lerner from the hearing and

subsequently recessed the substantive response to those hearing to consider whether ms. lerner had in fact waived her fifth amendment rights. meanwhile, the committee's investigation proceeded without ms. lerner's testimony. to date, we have conducted 33 bipartisan transcribed interviews of witnesses from the irs. we have heard witnesses' testimony during five committee and subcommittee hearings. because the irs has not fully cooperated with the committee's investigation, i have issued three subpoenas for documents. the irs continues to withhold some of ms. lerner's emails from the committee. documents and testimony show that ms. lerner is uniquely positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand how and why the irs targeted conservative groups. at a business meeting on june

lerner had in fact waived her 28, 2013, the committee approved a resolution rejecting ms. learner's claim of fifth amendment privilege based on her waiver at the may 22, 2013. after that vote, having made the determination that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights, the committee recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to rules. the committee voted and found that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights by making a statement on may 22, 2013. and additionally by affirming documents after making a statement of fifth amendment rights.

if she continues to refuse to answer questions from our members while she's under a subpoena, the committee may proceed to consider whether she should be held in contempt. since it's been 9 1/2 months since we started this hearing, i'm going to ask her to refirm her oath. let the record indicate the witness did answer in the affirmative. ms. lerner, put up slide one, in october, 2010, you told a duke university group, and i quote, the supreme court dealt a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns.

and everyone is up in arms because they do not like it. the federal election commission cannot do anything about it. they want the irs to fix the problem. ms. lerner, wanted to fix the problem caused by citizensthey united, what does that mean? could you please turn the mike on. >> my counsel has advised me i have notwayed my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and on his advice i decline to answer any subject matter in this hearing. >> so you're not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem under citizens united? united, what does that mean? >> on the advice of counsel i invoke my fifth amendment right and refuse to answer that question. >> in february, 2011, you emailed your colleagues and the following.

"tea party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one, please. cincy should probably not -- all in caps -- have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a,

parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington, testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multi-tier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again -- she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief

counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multi-tier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011, you requested that holly pawes obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads gps so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. ms. lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull crossroads gps, karl roves' organization, application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email

exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and in parenthasis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question.