Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, it was really troubling to be reviewing emails that the IRS finally produced to us after we asked for these emails for over a year. Of course, they gave them to us on the afternoon of July 3, so as to minimize the press damage.
Basically, the emails showed Lois Lerner sending an email to a technician saying, you know, Congress will ask for our emails, and I have told people in the IRS they need to be careful about what they say; question, if we do an instant message in the system that is called OCS, will those be immune to congressional oversight?
The technician basically said, well, that is the default setting, you can make it so that it would be archivable and searchable.
That was very troubling because it was almost like Lerner, as a matter of course, is conducting herself in a way to obstruct the proper oversight, and that is very troubling with an agency that is this powerful.
So I think what this amendment will do will be to simply prevent that. This is saying exactly what Lois Lerner was asking about, the settings. If you are going to use funds, the settings have got to be turned on, and if you don't, then you can't use funds to operate it.
So I think it is a commonsense amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, given that the point of order has been lodged, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 52.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment accomplishes the similar objective that I articulated just a moment ago, and I would just add that it is very troubling, if you were called into court to defend yourself against the IRS and they asked you to produce certain documents in discovery and your defense was, well, the documents have been destroyed, you would be presumed essentially guilty. They would have an adverse inference lodged against you.
I think that is what this amendment is getting to. The IRS has to practice what they preach. They should be held to the exact same standards as the American people are held to with their taxes, and they should follow the record retention requirements under Federal law.
So I think it is a commonsense amendment, and I urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, last year, the House Oversight Committee conducted a hearing to review an IG report documenting a lavish conference that was put on by the IRS--over $4 million for one conference. Expenses included $135,000 on outside speakers, including $17,000 for a speaker who created paintings on stage to make his point that one must free ``the thought process to find creative solutions to challenges.''
The troubling thing about the report was that the bulk of that money, $3.2 million, came from unused funds that were allocated for hiring. Now, this is at the exact same time that the IRS began to single out conservative groups that sought tax-exempt status, in part, they said, because the agency simply did not have the manpower to handle the number of applications pouring in.
Now, we have debunked that idea that somehow there was a torrent of applications, but golly gee, if that is really true, why are you spending $3.2 million on these conferences? So I think the IRS has abused the trust of the American taxpayer with respect to conferences, and I think it should be held accountable.
Now, some say in response to this amendment that taxpayers need to be forced to fund these conferences because it helps with IRS employee morale. I have just got to tell you, I am more concerned with the morale of the American people. When taxpayers see an arrogant agency flout the law, refuse to produce evidence, and waste tax dollars, they become demoralized, and rightfully so.
So at a time when military officers are receiving pink slips, there is no way we should allow the IRS to persist with these conferences.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source