The people who get swept up by the structuring law who actually may be guilty of structuring but who most people would say have done nothing wrong are people who simply don't want the Government knowing what they are up to.

I think one of the most important reforms that could be made would be to eliminate the profit motive that is inherent in civil forfeiture.

I think it would absolutely be a major improvement to allow people the opportunity for a prompt hearing, both to contest the seizure and also to present evidence of hardship.

The hardship hearing would be available for any kind of noncash seizure, for most kinds of noncash seizures. But the law specifically says that there is no hardship hearing available if you are--the money, if it was cash that was seized.

As much as I tried to talk about any other subject that we are working on in Congress, this group wanted to talk about the IRS.

Unfortunately, Carole Hinders can't be with us today.

I am here to try to give voice to my constituents, who are angry over the President's unconstitutional Executive amnesty.

Last year, a woman from Iowa, Sue Martinek, came to our committee and reported to us that the IRS had targeted her pro-life group for extra scrutiny before it got its tax-exempt status.

Well, the truth is, I say thanks to President Obama's amnesty, illegals will be getting thousands of dollars from the IRS. I feel like that is outrageous, and it is wrong. It is not fair. It is not right.

In my experience, the Government routinely disregards the deadline set by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

So let me make it clear, I represent hardworking, law-abiding Texas taxpayers in my district. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I think these amnesty rewards--and that is what they are--need to be stopped.