Mike Johnson

So of the seizures, the $242 million that was seized between 2005 and 2012, as I mentioned earlier, $116 million was never forfeited.

What would be incredibly valuable, obviously, to any property owner would be an opportunity to say, Look, sure, there is a bunch of $10,000 deposits. But I have got an insurance policy. It only covers up to $10,000.

Those local, State and local officers have a financial incentive in the enforcement of the law because under what is called equitable sharing, 80 percent of the money that is seized by the Federal Government can be returned to local law…

The problem is that the law simply does not provide any penalty for the Government if it disregards those deadlines because any penalty that is provided is simply toothless.

It is also a problem at the State and local level because of the equitable sharing process.

I don't think anybody on this panel actually violated the law. Yet the IRS is pursuing them anyway.

No. I don't believe that it is good enough.

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.

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

I absolutely believe it should be retroactive, yes.

I think that is true. Although I would again emphasize that of the $242 million that was seized by the IRS under the structuring law, $116 million--so almost half--was never forfeited.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

President Obama's Executive amnesty isn't just about immigration; it is about taxes also.

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

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

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.

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.

Sounds like we are continuing to kick the can down the road. We have to work today to strengthen and preserve Social Security.

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you because the shortfall has doubled from $5.3 trillion to $10.6 trillion while you guys have been in office, and that means Social Security can't pay the promises it has made.

Concern has been raised by some that Congress and the American people may not be adequately consulted during trade negotiations.

At the end of the day, it is only Congress that can decide whether the trade agreement goes into effect or not.