Unanimous Consent Request-- S. RES. 487

Floor Speech

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the facts regarding the ongoing IRS scandal that the Obama administration refuses to investigate, refuses to prosecute, refuses to address with honesty and integrity. I want to talk about the facts we know and the facts we don't know, and how we as the Senate can demonstrate fidelity to law and the integrity of the U.S. Government.

Let's talk about what we know.

We know that more than 1 year ago on May 14, 2013, the inspector general of the Treasury Department said that beginning in 2010 the IRS had improperly targeted conservative citizen groups, tea party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day the inspector general's report was made public, President Obama had described what occurred as ``intolerable and inexcusable.'' As President Obama put it: ``Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.''

Well, if President Obama was speaking the truth when he said over a year ago that Americans have a right to be angry about this, then today after over a year of obstruction of justice, of refusing to investigate or prosecute what happened under President Obama's own standard, the Americans have a right to be far more than angry about it.

Likewise, the very same day the inspector general report came out, Attorney General Eric Holder said the IRS targeting the conservative groups was ``outrageous and unacceptable.'' That was more than a year ago.

What has happened in the year and 2 months that have passed since then? Although both the President and the Attorney General profess outrage and anger, not a single person has been indicted--not a single person. Although both the President and the Attorney General said they would investigate this matter, it has been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. In fact, President Obama went on national television during the Super Bowl and categorically stated, ``There was not even a smidgeon of corruption to be found at the IRS.''

How far we had come from the day the scandal broke when he said he was angry and the American people had a right to be angry. Fast forward a few months later and he goes on television and says there is not a smidgeon of corruption.

That is a remarkable statement for the President to have made, because Attorney General Eric Holder 4 days earlier had told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there was an ongoing investigation being conducted at the IRS.

President Obama's comments and Eric Holder's comments are facially inconsistent. Either Eric Holder was telling the truth, that there is, in fact, a meaningful ongoing investigation, or President Obama was telling the truth when he said conclusively there is not a smidgeon of corruption. One or the other was not telling the truth or perhaps President Obama was simply prejudging the investigation. Perhaps President Obama was simply attempting to influence its outcome, making clear that the outcome desired from the White House is that there is not a smidgeon of corruption. What happened to the American people having a right to be angry? Now the President is instead telling investigators the conclusion they should reach.

Regardless, it is beyond dispute that the Obama administration, the Justice Department, has not held anyone accountable for this gross abuse of power.

In a hearing in January of this year, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to answer whether even a single victim of the wrongful targeting has been interviewed.

Let me repeat that. The victims who were targeted wrongly by the IRS--the citizens--for exercising their political free speech rights, the Attorney General refused to answer if they had even bothered to interview any of those citizens.

We also note some of the emails that have been made public give the appearance that the Department of Justice may have been directly involved in the illegal targeting of citizen groups based on their political views.

Most stunningly, we know that the lead attorney investigating this matter is a major Democratic donor and a major donor to President Obama. Indeed, she has given over $6,000 to President Obama and Democrats in recent years.

No reasonable person would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon. Yet the Obama administration is telling the American people the investigation into the wrongful targeting of conservatives will be led by a major Obama Democratic donor. That is contemptuous. It is contemptuous of the law; it is contemptuous of the American people. One would think that if you appoint a major Obama donor to lead the investigation, it is likely that the victims would not be interviewed, that no one would be indicted. And, wonder of wonders, what has happened? The victims have not been interviewed and no one has been indicted.

But that is not all. We have seen Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS office that illegally targeted conservative citizens, go before Congress and repeatedly plead the Fifth. When a senior government official takes the Fifth, that is an action that should be taken very seriously. Yet it seems in this town partisan politics trumps fidelity to law. What Lois Lerner said in the House of Representatives by pleading the Fifth is effectively standing there saying, ``If I answer your question, I may well implicate myself in criminal conduct.'' That is chilling.

Let me note with sadness that the Democratic Members of this Chamber seem to have no concern about a senior IRS official pleading the Fifth repeatedly because truthfully answering the questions could implicate her in criminal conduct.

Throughout it all Americans have been told that the Obama administration would find out what happened and would take the necessary actions.

Indeed, the new head of the IRS, Commissioner John Koskinen, promised as much. Now we find out that this new Commissioner is also a major donor to President Obama and Democratic causes. This new Commissioner of the IRS has given nearly $100,000 to the Democratic Party, including $7,300 to President Obama. What fairminded person would entrust not one but two major Obama donors to investigate how the IRS used political power to go after the enemies of President Obama? Not one but two--the lead lawyers in the Department of Justice heading up the noninvestigation that is not interviewing the victims, that is not indicting anyone, and the head of the IRS giving nearly $100,000 to Democratic causes.

We received even more striking news, that Commissioner Koskinen tells us the IRS lost Lois Lerner's emails. Oops, sorry. The dog ate my homework.

Madam President, if you or I tried that in our IRS returns, they wouldn't accept that excuse from a citizen. We are told the hard drive crashed and the documents are irretrievable under any circumstances. We also know the IRS didn't follow the law when it failed to report the hard drive crash that we are told occurred. But make no mistake, these emails haven't just been lost. These emails have been deleted, taped over, and the hard drive physically destroyed ccording to public news reports. This is Rosemary Woods, when you have Federal Government officials destroying evidence. In the ordinary parlance that is called obstruction of justice. The hard drive magically collapses, magically crashes, and is physically destroyed right after the investigation begins and, I would remind you, the investigation that has resulted in Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth twice.

We are supposed to believe that the emails from the IRS officials in charge of the division that illegally targeted political organizations and has repeatedly pleaded the Fifth to avoid incriminating herself, that her emails have simply vanished innocuously. It happens. It happens to people in the middle of illegal acts. Their records magically disappear right when the investigators are seeking to discover them.

This is an outrage. This is a scandal. This is an insult to anyone concerned about the rule of law, and no one in the Senate, regardless of political party, should stand by and accept this.

But it doesn't end there.

On Wednesday it was reported that Lois Lerner flagged a speaking invitation for Republican Senator Charles Grassley for examination. Senator Grassley is the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who has been a strong and powerful voice for accountability at the Department of Justice. It is curious that she would be so eager to subject Senator Grassley for extra scrutiny based on a speaking invitation.

Right now, today, the White House is in control of Democrats. There will come a time when Democrats no longer control the White House and the administration. I would ask every Democratic Member of this body, how comfortable are you with the precedent that the IRS can single out Democratic Senators who might disagree with the President's political position? The targeting of Chuck Grassley, the singling out of Chuck Grassley, ought to trouble every single Member of this body.

On Tuesday it was reported that the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage because the IRS admittedly unlawfully released confidential information of members of that group to its political opposition.

Let me repeat that. IRS officials have publicly admitted--this is not inference, this is not suggestion, this is what they have admitted--that they leaked personal tax information for the purpose of intimidating a conservative group to the political opposition of that group. That is textbook abuse of power. And I would note the $50,000 fine--which, by the way, has been paid by U.S. taxpayers--the $50,000 fine does nothing to address the partisan political corruption at the IRS, the abuse of power, or the coverup. A fine does not signal the problem has been fixed.

I would note, by the way, where are the Democratic Members of this body standing and saying it is wrong for the IRS to illegally hand over personal information from individual taxpayers for partisan purposes to their political opponents?

I want to underscore that the IRS has admitted they did this and paid a $50,000 fine and the Democratic Members of this body are apparently not troubled at all. If they are troubled, they keep their troubles very quiet and to themselves.

Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to target an administration's political enemy.

When a Republican President, Richard Nixon, attempted to use the IRS to target his political enemies, it was wrong. It was an abuse of power, and he was rightfully condemned on both sides of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans stood up to President Nixon when he attempted to use the IRS to target his political enemies and said: This is wrong.

The Obama administration didn't just attempt to do so, it succeeded. It carried out a concerted effort and targeted those who were perceived to be political enemies of the President and targeted those individual citizens. The administration then put two major Democratic donors in charge of the investigation and covered up the truth, including conveniently losing emails from the central player in this figure who has twice pleaded the Fifth.

It was wrong when Richard Nixon tried to use the IRS to target his political enemies, and it was wrong when the Obama administration tried and succeeded to do the same. The difference is when Richard Nixon did so, Republicans had the courage to stand up to Members of their own party. It saddens me that there is not a single Democratic Member of this body who has had the courage to stand up to their own party and say: This abuse of power--using the IRS to target citizens for political beliefs--is wrong.

We need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make sure justice is served and that our constitutional rights to free speech, to assembly, and to privacy are protected.

It saddens me to say that the U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has become the most partisan Department of Justice in the history of our country. I say this as a former associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice. I can tell you there are Democratic alumni across this country who are saddened and heartbroken to see the Department of Justice becoming effectively an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

IRS officials have stonewalled at every turn, and we should not wait a single minute to put an end to the intimidation and bullying of the American people. These are not the actions of a government that respects its citizens. We need to restore that respect, that government officials work for the people and not the other way around.

The Department of Justice has a storied history. There is a history of attorneys general standing up to political pressure, even against the Presidents who have appointed them. Listen, political pressure in this town is nothing new and attorneys general throughout history have had a special mettle of being willing to look into the eyes of the President who appointed them and willing to say: I care more about the rule of law than any partisan allegiance I might have.

When President Richard Nixon faced charges of abusing government power for partisan ends, his attorney general Elliot Richardson, a Republican, appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor. Likewise, when President Bill Clinton faced charges of ethical impropriety, his attorney general Janet Reno, a Democrat, appointed Robert Fiske as independent counsel. Sadly, the current attorney general has refused to live up to that bipartisan tradition of independence, of integrity, and of fidelity to law.

I have repeatedly called on Attorney General Eric Holder to remove the investigation from the hands of a major Obama donor and put it instead in the hands of a special prosecutor with meaningful independence who, at a minimum, is not a major Democratic donor. Even the very slightest respect for the rule of law would suggest that the attorney general should not be part and parcel of the political and partisan coverup.

Therefore, in a few moments I intend to ask for unanimous consent to call up a Senate resolution expressing the opinion of the Senate that the Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute--if the facts support--the IRS targeting of Americans and its potential coverup of those actions.

When I asked the Attorney General whether the Department of Justice investigated the direct involvement of political appointees at the White House--up to and including the President--Attorney General Holder refused to answer that question. That is always the hardest thing for an attorney general to do: Ask the question that raises partisan peril. That is why attorneys general are supposed to be nonpartisan and owe their fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of this United States and to the American people.

The House of Representatives has passed a similar resolution to the one I am submitting. It was sponsored by Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio on May 7, 2014. The resolution passed in the House 250 to 168. Twenty-six Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.

Why is it that Democrats in the House of Representatives can muster up the courage to stand up to the partisan pressure from the White House.

Yet in the Senate we hear crickets chirping. This used to be the body praised for its independence and for its ability to stand up to abuse of power.

Just today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Obama administration for the 12th time in the last 2 years in its assertion of overbroad executive authority. This time it asserted that the President unconstitutionally attempted to circumvent the checks and balances of the Constitution by unilaterally appointing recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously, by a vote of 9 to 0, said the President's actions were unconstitutional in that case, and once again, as with the IRS, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle were silent. How is it there is no longer a Robert Byrd, that there is no longer a Ted Kennedy, that there are no longer any Democrats who will defend the institutional integrity of the Senate? How is it when the Supreme Court concludes unanimously that the President's intrusion on the Senate's constitutional authority is unconstitutional not a single Senate Democrat has the courage to stand up to this President? How is it in the face of a senior IRS official repeatedly pleading the Fifth, how is it in the face of the IRS admitting it wrongfully handed over private personal IRS tax data to the political opponents of a citizens group and paid a $50,000 fine for it, how is it that not a single Democratic Senator does not have the courage to speak up? At what point does it become too much? At what point does it become embarrassing?

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, whom I might note is a liberal and voted for President Obama in 2008, said that President Obama has become the embodiment of the imperial President. He described how Barack Obama has become the President Richard Nixon always wished he could be. I am sorry to say that he has done so with the active aiding and abetting of 55 Democratic Members of this Senate because when Democratic Members of this Senate or any Member of this Senate stands by and allows the President to trample on the rule of law, then any one of us who remains silent is explicit in undermining the Constitution.

This resolution should be unanimous. If the tables were turned and this were a Republican President and a Republican Attorney General had appointed a major Republican donor to lead the investigation into the wrongful targeting of Democrats and destroyed emails and hard drives and publicly admitted to leaking private citizen information to the political opponents of Democrats, the Democratic side of this Chamber would rightly be lighting their hair on fire.

If this were a Republican administration, every media outlet would have banner headlines every single day. I can assure you that at least some Republican Senators would be standing up and saying this abuse of power is wrong.

This resolution should be unanimous because everyone should agree that an investigation should be beyond reproach and should not be handed over to major Democratic donors.

If the allegation--which the report of the inspector general of Treasury has already confirmed in significant respect--is of abuse of government power of the IRS to target citizens for their political beliefs, then you cannot entrust the investigation to someone who is partisan and has a political interest in protecting the party in power. If Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor, he should be impeached.

When an attorney general refuses to enforce the rule of law, mocks the rule of law, and corrupts the Department of Justice by conducting a nakedly partisan investigation to cover up political wrongdoing, that conduct, by any reasonable measure, constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

Attorney General Eric Holder has the opportunity to do the right thing. He can appoint a special prosecutor with meaningful independence who is not a major Obama donor. Yet every time the Attorney General has been called on to do this, he has defiantly said no. In fact, he said in writing in his discretion, no. If Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the abuse of power by the IRS against the American people, he should be impeached.

I agree with President Obama when he said on the day this scandal broke, the American people have a right to be angry. If the American people had a right to be angry over a year ago when the scandal broke, the fact that it has now been covered up and the fact that a partisan investigation has refused to begin to scratch the surface of what happened should make the American people more than angry. It should move them to action. It should move them to accountability. It should move them to hold the officials of our government responsible.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 487. I further ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Source