mr. rangel said there's a cancer here, you got to remove it. do you agree with mr. rangel? >> i think there has to be action. look, i was the first democrat to say that mr. miller should be relieved of his responsibilities and so miss lerner. i said that a few days ago. i believe absolutely we need to get to the bottom of it. just don't throw apples at the top if you have no evidence to support it. and in the hearing today, there was no such evidence. we should have a nonpartisan hearing, not look for political points. >> okay. let me agree -- thank you, both, for coming on. mr. reichart. thanks for coming on. give us a sense of your structure so we can identify who made the decision to code the republicans are gleeful over the outreaj. so much so that they are urging republicans to bring up any legislation. in other words, just keep the scandal complex going. # it won't look if they place the cards right. how sequester cuts endanger critical search that could affect you. the national institute of health. and if you believe evolution is a lie or you can stop being gay, then

mr. rangel is recognized. x. we are all out raged by what has occurred under the bush as well as obama appointees. obamare were no appointees. i apologize. i'm not sure -- water talking about? thatce it was discovered people were put on a book out list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in the treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continuing service under president obama? it is basically the question have already been asked. >> at the irs, the commissioner was appointed under the bush administration. at the treasury, those individuals would be obama appointees. >> the outrage is not democrat and republican. the president has indicated outrage. you have indicated outrage. i would assume we are on the same side in trying to determine how this happened, who was responsible, how far does the cancer go, how quickly can we cut it out? so that tens of thousands of irs employees have this stigma of corruption taken away from them that you, mr. miller, a c

mr. rangel said there's a cancer here, you got to remove it. do you agree with mr. rangel? >> i think there has to be action. look, i was the first democrat to say that mr. miller should be relieved of his responsibilities and so miss lerner. i said that a few days ago. i believe absolutely we need to get to the bottom of it. just don't throw apples at the top if you have no evidence to support it. and in the hearing today, there was no such evidence. we should have a nonpartisan hearing, not look for political points. >> okay. let me agree -- thank you, both, for coming on. mr. reichart. thanks for coming on. i think we made two points. i think we heard ships passing in the night. the one point, mr. miller, the acting head, did not answer the questions which were appropriate. he must have known they were coming. give us a sense of your chain of command. give us a sense of your structure so we can identify who made the decision to code the various organizations trouble. and then also i think there is a real challenge here to the chairman of the committee who wasn't with us t

mr. rangel? >> i think there has to be action. i was the first democrat to say that mr. miller should be relieved of his responsibilities, and so mitch learner -- i said that a few days ago. i believe we need to get to the bottom of it. just don't throw apples at the top if you have no evidence to support it. and in the hearing today, there was no such evidence. we should have a nonpartisan hearing, not look for political points. >> okay. thank you very much. >>> coming up, the scandal that wasn't benghazi. thomas pickering handles the investigation. this afternoon he learned he's been subpoenaed to testify in private next week about his investigation. he'd prefer to talk in public. tonight, we'll give him the chance. also, republican s are gleeful n their outrage over the irs, that republicans are not bringing any legislation, in other words, pass nothing and keep the scandal industry going. plus, our series, the unkindest cut. how sequester cuts are endangering critical medical research that actually could affect you. and if you believe that evolution is a lie or that

mr. rangel is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.audible] >> occurred under the bush appointees as well as the obama appointees? >> there were no obama appointees, so, under, under mr. shulman, i'm not sure-- i apologize mr. rangel, i'm not sure what -- are we talking about-- >> the people that were -- once it was discovered that people were put under a list, a lookout list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continuing service under president obama? basically the question is that mr. crowley was asking about. >> at the irs, the commissioner was appointed under the bush administration. obviously, at treasury, those would be at main treasury, those individuals would be obama appointees. >> what i'm trying to say, this outrage is not democrat and republican, it's -- it involves the credibility of government as relates to american citizens. now, the president has indicated outrage. you have indicated outrage. so, i would assume tha

mr. rangel of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. : i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . rangel: i heard the last speaker, but there's no question in my mind that when they -- the person from the other side said that the republican party's first priority is not the salvation of our country but to stop barack obama, i didn't take him too seriously after the election, i see the campaign continues. and as a little veteran i understand that. -- as a political veteran, i understand that. let me make it clear what we are doing today. i had a friend that was deeply in debt. he owed so much money that he just knew he couldn't pay all of his creditors. now, it was nowhere near $14 trillion, but it was a lot. the creditors harassed him day in and day out telling him he had to make these payments. finally he got annoyed. he got angry. he called his creditors and told them, if you keep harassing me, ilogical not put your name in the hat because every month i put all of my creditor

mr. rangel is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.asy to say that we are all outraged by the bush and the obama appointees? >> there were no obama appointees though under mr. shulman, and i apologize mr. rangel, what are we talking about? >> well, the people once it was discovered that people were put under a list, a look-out list, that type of thing and regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continued service under president obama? so that is basically question that mr. crowley was asking. >> obviously at treasury, main treasure, those individuals would be obama appointees and at the irs would be bush. >> the outrage is that it is not democrat or republican, but it involves the credibility of government as it relates to american citizens. now the president has indicated outrage, and you have indicated outrage, so, i would assume that we are on the same side in trying to determine how did this happen, who was responsible for it, and how far did this can

mr. rangel. i'm not sure, are we talking about -- >> people, the once it was discovered that people were put under a list, a look out list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, worry the people responsible in treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continued service under president obama? basically what mr. crowley was talking about. >> at the irs the commission was appointed under the bush administration. obviously, at treasury those would be, at main treasury, those individuals would be obama appointees. >> what i'm trying to say, this outrage is not democrat and republican. it involves the credibility of government as relates to american citizens. now, the president has indicated outrage. you have indicated outrage. so i would assume that we are on the same side in trying to determine how did this happen, who was responsible for it, how far does this cancer to? how quickly can we cut it out? so that tens of thousands of irs employees have this stigma of corrup

mr. rangel's question the irs was doing this because they were concerned about political activities by nonprofits. some of these that were approved were chattanooga organized for action, the progressive leadership alliance and the progressive usa. if you were concerned about political activity, did you have targeting lists that contained words like progressive or organizing in their names? >> so let's step back again and let me walk you through the process. we centralized cases based on political activity evidenced in the file. we took a short cut on some of it but we collected, to be blunt, more than tea party cases. mr. george's strong report -- >> there were no progressive or organizing buzz words used for targeting. >> that's correct. anytime it was seen that political activity was part of the file -- >> time is expired. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >>> these days congress can't seem to agree on whether the sun is shining but this issue has brought us together in a way unlike anything you see here. >>> i'm chris jansing. we are continuing to listen to the house ways and means hearing. we have

mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my rashes, ma'am. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you so much. i think all of us came to this august body with the mandate that we should try to improve the quality of life for our constituents and therefore the united states. people that made our country so great. education. health care, jobs. these are the things we want to do. but it's reached a point that this is no longer just putting democrat at a political advantage. what it is doing is embarrassing the entire congress. and i dare say people in the country recognize that there's something wrong going on in congress. those of you that have taken civics 101 knows that there is no intention to repeal this act. people are waiting to get jobs, they're wait, really, to get health care. and we are on the move for that. i've been here over four decades. we've been trying to get universal care, we're almost there. if you're talking about repeal, it takes t

mr. rangel's questioning and earlier testimony, the irs was doing this because they were concerned about political activities by nonprofits? that seems to be the debate taking place here. some of these that were approved were chattanooga organization for action. progressive leadership alliance and the progressive usa. if you were concerned about political activity, did you have targeting lists that contained word like progressive of organizing in their names? >> so let's step back again. let me walk you through the process. we centralized cases based on political activity evidenced in the file. we took a shortcut on some of it, but we collected, to be blunt, more than tea party cases. mr. george's long report -- >> there were no progressive or organizing buzz words tarp used for targeting, is that correct? >> that's correct. but we collected more people because any time it was seen that political activity was a part of the file, it went into -- >> time has expired. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. these days congress can't seem to agree on whether the sun is shini

mr. rangel's question in earlier testimony, the irs was doing this because they're concerned about political actions by nonprofits. some of these approved art chattanooga organize for action, progressive leadership alliance, and progress of usa. if you were concerned about political activity, did you have targeting lists that contain less like "progressive" for "organized" in their name? >> let's take a step back and i walk you through the process. we centralize cases based on evidenced intivity. the file. we take a shortcut on some of it, but we collect, to be blunt, more than a tea party cases. mr. george's own report -- >> there were no progressive buzz words used. >> we collected more people because any time it was seen that political activity was part of the file -- >> time is expired. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. these days, congress does not seem to agree if the sun is shining but this issue has brought us together. we all agree that these applications were orally handled. -- were poorly handled. them to a hold higher standard. the irs is an easy target. every

mr. rangel of new york. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i heard the last speaker -- there is no question in my mind that when a person from the other side said that the republicans first priorities is not the salvation of our country but to stop barack obama -- i do not take into serious -- too seriously after the election, but i see the campaign a politicalnd as veteran, i understand that. let me make it clear what we are doing today. i had a friend that was deeply in debt. that heso much money knew he could not pay all of his creditors. it was nowhere near $14 trillion, but it was a lot. him day inrs harass and day out telling him he had to make these payments. finally he got annoyed, he got angry, and he called his creditors and told them -- if you keep arresting me, -- harassing me, i will not put your name in a hat, because every month i put all of my bills into a hat, but the way you are treating me and harassing me at home, your name will not go into the hat. that is pretty poor policy, i would think, but if i understand this correctly, we are telling our creditors

lastly, i think what rangel is really hinting at, something that a lot of democrats are saying and mrs. pelosi was saying, is this is all happening because of citizens united. citizens united opened up the floodgates and the u.s. government didn't know how to respond to it. not necessarily a good thing for democrats when the irs is now going to be much in charge of implementing their health care bill. >> indeed. luke russert, chris cillizza, thank you very much. >>> and the clean-up continuing in texas, in granbury texas, where the devastation stretching for miles, six people are dead, but all of the missing have been accounted for today, that's some good news, 16 tornadoes touched down wednesday night. including the first e-4 storm to hit the area in decades. governor rick perry is expected to tour the area this afternoon. >>> 60 homes built by habitat for humanity were destroyed. all that's left of one house, the slab of concrete. >> when you can put a name and a face that you worked beside the people that built that house and you know how much that home means to that family, it's ve

mr. president. you either get ahea of this or your head they will be calling for next on this. welcome everybod, i'm neil cavuto. even charliesrangling, congressman charli rangel says tis irs thing is over the stop he wants to g the bottom of it right now. the congressman is on the phone. congressman, what do you make of all this. >> i think it is orageous. i think it undercuts the credibility of our country, of your treasury department. i'm glad that the president feels this way. we got to see some action. we've got to determine, even before the hearings are on frid, who is responsible r this, this conduct. this is irresponsible and there is no justification. neil: do you think, congressman, that i think it was speaker boehner said, they souldn't only resign, some of the culprits should go to jail . what do you think of that? >> well, first of all you need criminal intent to go to jail. is it negligence? one thing is clear, it is not responsible conduct. so i don'tnow whether we bring th up on charges but if there's any, any indication that someone deliberately broke the law and clrly this is against law, of course they shouldal be indicted. but more importan

rangel obviously as we continue to watch this process move forward here. so many questions are raised about how all of this got underway. and this is mr. miller, who of course we know is leaving his job and had previously been decided to leave in june and the most, strongest action that we've seen from the white house was to ask for his resignation and now one other irs official under him as well. chris wallace has been watching all of this of course, very closely as we have here. and chris, your reaction so far to what is going on here? >> well, there are a lot of questions. there aren't as many answers. miller, i thought it was quite interesting said there was no political targeting. this was simply an effort, there was a huge increase in the number of applications for tax-exempt status. in effect he said it is a bookkeeping mistake. i don't know that that is going to, first of all, i don't think it has been, has flown with this committee very much and i think it won't fly with the american people the idea that the single abouting out of groups with tea party, with patriot, with constitution, with bill of rights in their name was sim

mr. miller's answers. what are you hearing about that. >> there definitely was frustration because the i.r.s. did not reveal the activity was going on and also for the activity itself. here is a key democrat, charlie rangel. >> regardless of whether democrats or republicans did something like this. the outrage should still be there, is that not correct? >> um, the outrage as to -- >> the abuse. >> yes. >> this section of the law has been abused eye government employees, not by all of them, but by some of them, and our job is to find out who they are. >> reporter: bottom line the tone in the room suggests that most. lawmakers are not going to think that resigning or retiring early is going to be sufficient for what has gone on at the i.r.s. >> frustration swirling about indeed. mike emanuel thank you very much. meantime we have now developments, i'll take this to you jon. jon: in the other scandal rocking the administration this week, the terror attack in benghazi. new evidence in the white house emails released this week shows the state department's concerns about the failure to act on documented warnings and security incidents in libya. they took out references to prior attacks in benghazi in their talk