Calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I begin this discussion today, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 565. I want to lay the premise of the discussion as I begin to explain why the question of ``why?'' is not answered. I would imagine that the question of ``why?'' will not be answered by the conclusion of this debate.

The premise of the resolution H. Res. 565 is on the Federal regulations 601, 600.2, and 600.3. On the face of the resolution, in the facts, there is no evidence under either of the two initial ones. And that is, first, there has been no elimination of the question of whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be; and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not they determine such an investigation is needed, and that the investigation or prosecution of the person or matter by the United States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest. Then the circumstances will be in the public interest. None of those criteria have been met.

First of all, in a May 7 letter most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation, an ongoing investigation into all of the allegations. From the Ways and Means, from the Oversight Committee there is an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation.

Now, I believe in congressional oversight, but I also believe in rational congressional oversight, which means, why are we asking for special counsel when the Department of Justice is in the middle of an active investigation? There has been no conclusion, there has been no suggestion that there will not be a further investigation or criminal investigation, and there is no proven conflict of interest.

The Department of Justice employee that has been mentioned by the majority:

One, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated February 3, 2014;

And two, President Obama is not the point of this investigation, as I understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in the course of a campaign.

Are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private personal right, First Amendment right, of freedom of speech? I would think not.

So I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. There are no grounds for it. The Justice Department is working and it is investigating. Again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department that has been adhered to by Republican and Democratic administrations. You may not like the results of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.''

There is an ongoing investigation. That means that at the conclusion, or when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is still to be made. There is no closure now to suggest that the Department of Justice has not done what it is supposed to do.

In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility.

This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of that criteria.

The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful, constitutionally protected political activity, of which I have spoken, and is not the lead counsel-- definitively is not the lead counsel.

We have two distinct and qualified experts: Bruce Green, a former Federal prosecutor and current professor of law at Fordham Law School, and Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal procedure from Columbia, who clearly articulate no basis for experts conflict of interest. In fact, the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that committee's yearlong investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax exempt status.

Among this report's principal findings are that over the course of lengthy

and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified. Not a single one of these witnesses' interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation.

These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no political affiliation.

Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is, as I have indicated, an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department in this matter, and they are complying with the structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. There has been no determination of conflict. There has been no determination that we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the United States Congress. We are in an ongoing investigation.

600.2 of the Code, as I mentioned, of the Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. But an easy manner, other than a resolution on the floor of the House: a simple letter could have been written to the Attorney General for his consideration.

So what is this resolution about? To begin with, it is pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and, of course, C-SPAN coverage, but has no real legal effect.

Even The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which is certainly not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of President Obama or its administration, which is not a bastion of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability.''

I would rather have us working together, Mr. Speaker. I would rather us get to the facts. I would rather that the professional men and women of the U.S. Department of Justice be allowed to pursue this investigation unbiased and thorough.

Rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the opposite result. The Journal explains:

With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move

to the shadows, and the administration and the IRS would use

it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress.

Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed. If there

were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered

would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were

filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the

four corners of the violated statute.

Beyond proving the specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. We could be doing other things, and we could not be spending $14 million.

There has been no basis for this resolution to pass, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565.

For those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department.

In pertinent part, section 600.1 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,'' under certain specified circumstances.

In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's prosecution would present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.

This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of these criteria.

The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful--constitutionally protected--political activity.

In fact, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that Committee's year-long investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax-exempt status.

Among this report's principal findings are that: over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses involved in this matter, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified; and not a single one of these 39 witness interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation.

These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no political affiliation.

Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into this matter.

Indeed, section 600.2 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigation--in lieu of appointing a special counsel--to determine whether grounds even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel.

So what is this resolution really about?

To begin with, it's pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House Leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and C-span coverage, but has no real legal effect.

Even the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, which is not a bastian of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability.''

And, rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the opposite result. The Journal explains:

With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move

to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use

it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress.

Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed . . . . If

there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has

discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal

charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray

far from the four corners of the violated statute.

Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special

prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public

policy consequences and political accountability.

The Wall Street Journal concludes by pointing out the obvious:

Congress can do the investigating first, and if it

discovers criminal behavior it can make that known and refer

the cases and evidence to Mr. Holder, who will then be

accountable if he refuses to act.

Unfortunately, the real scandal here is that this foolhardy witch hunt directed at the IRS has cost American taxpayers well in excess of $14 million dollars, money that we all know could have been better spent.

And now we are wasting limited floor time on this charade rather than taking up the issues that the American people urgently need this Congress to act upon.

These include: fixing our broken immigration system; increasing the minimum wage; strengthening our Nation's economic recovery; creating more jobs; extending unemployment insurance; and helping students struggling with overwhelming educational loan debt, which now exceeds one trillion dollars.

These are real issues that affect real people across America. This is where we should be focusing our resources.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, a former official of the New Mexico State Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important to state that one of the provisions that is not in the regulation for establishing a special counsel is that it is a ``get you'' procedure. It is not a ``got you'' procedure. It follows an orderly process of which the Department of Justice is engaged.

I would like to introduce into the Record a letter dated February 3, 2014, that indicates that the Justice Department's lawyer who has been charged with leading the investigation is not leading the investigation. He is part of a team.

Office of the

Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2014.

Hon. Jim Jordan,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and

Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Jordan: This responds to your letter to an

attorney in the Civil Rights Division, dated January 31,

2014, again requesting her testimony at a Subcommittee

hearing on February 6, 2014, regarding the Department of

Justice's ongoing criminal investigation into the Internal

Revenue Service's treatment of groups applying for tax exempt

status. To reiterate, consistent with longstanding Department

policy, no Department representative will be in a position to

provide testimony about this ongoing law enforcement matter.

As a preliminary matter, we disagree with your allegation

that because of the attorney's engagement in lawful political

activity, she has a conflict of interest regarding the

investigation. Your letter of January 28, 2014, selectively

quoted the Department regulation concerning the

disqualification of employees from investigations based on

personal or political relationships, and alleged that ``at

the very least, [the attorney's] participation in the

investigation runs afoul of this regulation.'' A careful

review of 28 C.F.R. 45.2, however, shows that this is not

true. That regulation provides that an employee should not

participate in an investigation if he or she has ``a personal

or political relationship'' with a person or organization

substantially involved in the conduct being investigated or

who has a specific and substantial interest in the

investigation's outcome. The regulation defines a ``political

relationship'' as ``close identification with an elected

official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for

elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign

organization, arising from service as a principal adviser

thereto or a principal official thereof,'' and defines

``personal relationship'' as a ``close and substantial

connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce

partiality'' and states that employees are presumed to have a

personal relationship with spouses, parents, children, and

siblings, and that other relationships must be judged on an

individual basis. Accordingly, consistent with this

regulation, the attorney whose integrity you have unfairly

questioned has neither a political nor personal relationship

that disqualifies her from the investigation. We also note

again that, contrary to the assertion in your letter of

January 28, 2014, this attorney was not assigned to lead the

investigation, but rather is a member of a team that includes

representatives of the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights

Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

We agree with your view that ``[t]he American people

deserve to have complete confidence that the Administration

is conducting through and unbiased investigation.''

Accordingly, it is imperative that we avoid actions--such as

testifying before Congress about this pending criminal

investigation--that could give rise to a perception that the

criminal investigation is subject to undue influence by

elected officials. We reiterate that consistent with

longstanding policy, in order to protect the integrity or our

investigation, we are not in a position to provide you with

any non-public information about this ongoing matter. This

policy is intended to protect the effectiveness and integrity

of the criminal justice process, as well as the privacy

interests of third parties. It is neither new nor partisan,

but rather based upon longstanding views of Department

officials, both Democrat and Republican alike. While we

respect the important role of congressional oversight, we

believe that our provision of the testimony you have

requested would be inconsistent with our commitment to

principles of justice and the independence of our law

enforcement efforts.

As the Attorney General stated in his testimony before the

Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2014, ``[t]he men

and women of the Justice Department have for time immemorial

put aside whatever their political leanings are and conducted

investigations in a way that relies only on facts and the

law,'' and we do not ``have any basis to believe that the

people who are engaged in this investigation are doing so in

a way other than investigations are normally done--that is,

by looking at the facts, applying the law to those facts and

reaching the appropriate conclusions.'' We request that you

allow the Department employees responsible for this

investigation to conduct it without demands for disclosures

or other interference that would be inconsistent with their

commitment to the integrity of the criminal justice process.

We appreciate your interest in this investigation and, as the

Attorney General has explained, we will be in a better

position to provide Congress with information about our

decisions in this matter when it is concluded.

Sincerely,

James M. Cole,

Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say very quickly that the entire premise of the gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. Thirty-nine witnesses never said one moment that the Presidential election of 2012 was in any way involved in this particular issue.

In addition, this is a bipartisan investigation because we have the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration appointed by a Republican and who is a Republican working with the Department of Justice.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this issue.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could you give us how much time is remaining on both sides, please?

I am sure my kind friend from Virginia will yield me some additional time, but I will use what I have.

Let me try to bring us together, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there was a collegial moment when we said, Let's clarify the law.

If there is anything the Democrats and Republicans agree with, it is that ineptness, wrongness, misdirection was obviously evident in the equal targeting of all groups--groups that had the name ``progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and others.

As Members of Congress, none of us want the citizens of the United States to be in any way intimidated by a government that is here to help them. And I stand here saying we can come together to ensure that all of our government agencies work well.

The President made the point in May of 2013 that if in fact the IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups--and it has been noted by the witnesses in the Oversight Committee that they were targeting other groups as well--Occupy, progressive--then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it.

There is no conflict in this.

What we are now debating is a fallacy of the appointment of a special counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages of unredacted documents, more than 250 people who have been responding to congressional inquiries.

I will include in the Record an April 23, 2014, letter to Congressman Sander Levin that talks about the litany of requests that the IRS has been requested to do.

Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2014.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Levin: I am responding to your request for

documents relating to tax exempt advocacy organizations.

Since May of last year, the Internal Revenue Service has

been collecting, reviewing, and producing materials in

response to a number of Congressional requests, including

those from you and your Committee. In order to provide you

and your staff our full cooperation in addressing this

matter, more than 250 people, including attorneys, litigation

support staff, and other IRS personnel have worked more than

100,000 hours.

With this production, we have produced, including special

requests from individual committees, nearly 700,000 pages of

unredacted documents to the Senate Finance and House Ways and

Means Committees, which are authorized to receive I.R.C.

Sec. 6103 information. We also have produced, including

special requests from individual committees, over 530,000

pages, redacted as required by section 6103, to the Senate

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House

Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Our productions

have prioritized the custodians, subject matters, and search

terms when and as requested.

We have responded to more than fifty Congressional letters

and hundreds of informal Congressional requests.

We have facilitated more than sixty transcribed interviews

by Congressional staff of current and former IRS employees.

IRS personnel have answered questions related to the

subjects of these investigations at 18 Congressional

hearings.

The IRS document production was collected from IRS hard

copy and electronic files, including documents from 83

individual custodians.

This production consists of documents from multiple

custodians; the materials are Bates-stamped IRSR0000617700--

IRSR0000645643 and IRSR0000649674--IRSR0000650117.

Additionally, we are reproducing documents that were

previously produced with non-6103 redactions, which have been

removed in this production. These documents are Bates-stamped

as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Bates End Bates ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also will include in the Record a May 7, 2014, letter that emphasizes that this is a bipartisan investigation. The inspector general of the Tax Administration, appointed by George Bush, is working with the U.S. Department of Justice. It negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2014.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter of April 9,

2014, providing the Department of Justice (the Department)

information and documents that the Committee on Ways and

Means (the Committee) has obtained in the course of its

ongoing investigation into allegations of targeting by the

Internal Revenue Service of organizations based on their

political views.

As you may know, the Department has an ongoing criminal

investigation into the IRS's treatment of groups applying for

tax-exempt status, which is being conducted jointly with the

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). We

appreciate your concern and will carefully consider the

Committee's findings as part of our investigation into these

allegations.

We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not

hesitate to contact this office if we may provide assistance

in this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Kadzik,

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

In addition, I think it is very important to note that we are the Congress and the administration. But I take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the Federal Government and that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation.

The letter that we received on February 23, 2014, debunks any personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with any one political candidate from a personal perspective.

A donation, yes. But are you suggesting that that individual has no private right to enterprise their free speech?

There is no close identification with an elected official, no relationship with families and children.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the standard of 600.1, 600.2, and finds no conflict. This is no investigation that is over. There is no suggestion that they are not, in essence, investigating all parties, and that there will not be a conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted.

And so this resolution does not meet the standard. It is, again, taking up space on the floor. I would like to see unemployment insurance and immigration reform here. I would like to help the American people and help job legislation to make a difference here in the United States Congress.

I have other documents I will add into the Record, Mr. Speaker. These letters are experts saying there is no conflict of interest.

Columbia University Law School,

New York, NY, February 5, 2014.

Re Prosecutorial Disqualification

Hon. Donald K. Sherman,

Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Sherman: Although I lack deep familiarity with the

matter you are inquiring about, I can offer some brief

thoughts on the questions you have posed to me, specifically:

Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a

Presidential campaign or political party create a conflict of

interest in a multi-agency investigation regarding

allegations of political targeting by federal agency

officials?

Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a

Presidential campaign or political party create grounds for

disqualification arising from a personal or ``political

relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency

investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal

agency officials?

Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to

check the political donations made by a career prosecutor

before assigning that person to join a multi-agency

investigation involving victims claiming that they were

treated unfairly because of their political beliefs?

For background: I am currently the Paul J. Kellner

Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. For the past twenty

years, my scholarship has focused on criminal procedure and

federal criminal enforcement issues. I teach courses in

Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Federal Criminal Law, and a

Sentencing seminar. Before entering academia, I served as an

assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York,

and ultimately was the Chief Appellate Attorney in that

Office. Since leaving government service in 1992, I have

served as a consultant for various federal agencies,

including the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector

General, and I have been retained as defense counsel or a

consultant in a number of criminal and civil matters.

You have posed these questions with respect to a specific

Justice Department employee who, according to publically

available FEC data, donated amounts totaling $4250 to

political campaign funds related to the Democratic Party and

Barack Obama in 2004, and $2000 to funds relating to

President Obama in 2012. Any claim that these contributions,

in of themselves, create a conflict of interest or should be

cause for disqualification for a career prosecutor

investigating allegations of political targeting in the

Executive Branch strikes me as meritless.

28 CFR 45.2 is bars an employee from participating ``in a

criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or

political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in

the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or

prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a

specific and substantial interest that would be directly

affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

And it goes on to define a ``political relationship'' as

a close identification with an elected official, a

candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public

office, a political party, or a campaign organization,

arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a

principal official thereof. . . .

Simple past campaign contributions do not come close to

meeting this standard. Indeed, were they to do so, the

conflict concerns would extend as much to employees who had

donated to the party out of office, since presumably that

party would be gain from any findings of impropriety by the

current Administration. It would similarly be highly

inappropriate for Justice Department officials, in putting an

investigative team together to inquire into the legal

political contributions that line prosecutors have made in

their private capacity. In my experience, one of the glories

of the Justice Department--worthy of celebration, not

undermining--is the non-partisan way in which line

prosecutors have done their work as Administrations come and

go. The last thing we want is to divide them into political

affinity groups.

Very truly yours,

Daniel Richman.

Oppose this present resolution and let's move on to come together and effectively work on behalf of the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, welcome to witch-hunt week here in the United States House of Representatives. Our economy is slowly recovering, slower than any of us would like. Millions of unemployed Americans have been left behind because their unemployment benefits have expired. Our immigration system is broken. Millions of Americans are living in poverty because they don't earn enough to make ends meet. And we have a pay equity issue where women, on average, earn less than men for doing the same job. I mean, climate change is a real issue and is getting worse.

So what is the response from the House Republican leadership? A jobs bill? No. A fully funded transportation bill? No. An extension of long- term unemployment benefits? No. Comprehensive immigration reform? No. An increase in the minimum wage? No way. A pay equity bill? No. A sensible energy policy? No. Of course not, not from this leadership.

You know, when it comes to jobs or improving the economy, my Republican friends have no ideas. And here is the deal: they are afraid the American people are going to figure this out. And so what do they do? They create distractions and diversions, more investigations, more investigations.

Mr. Speaker, instead of tackling the issues that actually matter to people, House Republicans are once again playing to cheap seats with hyperpartisan political witch-hunts.

Now, this rule before us today contains two bills. One would hold Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations in contempt of Congress; the other would appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of nonprofit groups by the IRS. And that is just today. The House Republican leadership will be doubling down on the crazy later this week by creating a select committee to exploit the tragedy of Benghazi. It is shameful.

This is ridiculous. The IRS clearly overstepped in the way they identified and targeted nonprofit groups. That is not an issue for debate. But an issue of this magnitude and importance, potential abuse by the Internal Revenue Service, deserves to be handled in a bipartisan and professional manner. That standard has not been achieved during these investigations.

I say ``these investigations,'' plural, because multiple committees have spent nearly a year looking into this. From nearly the beginning, Republicans have operated on their own and not in a bipartisan and professional manner. To date, 39 witnesses have been interviewed, more than 530,000 pages of documents have been reviewed, and the IRS has spent at least $14 million of taxpayer money cooperating with all of these requests and investigations.

And what do we have to show for all this work? We have had a circus in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform--a circus. We have seen Ms. Lerner assert her Fifth Amendment rights, and we have seen Chairman Issa literally cut the mic while Ranking Member Cummings was speaking. In all my years as a Member of Congress and as a staff member, I have never seen such behavior in a committee before, ever.

And during this investigation, we have seen over 30 legal experts come together and state that Chairman Issa's contempt proceedings--one of the bills that we are considering here today--are constitutionally deficient. In other words, more than 30 legal experts--both Democrats and Republicans, and also including former House counsels--believe that the courts would throw this contempt resolution out of court. Now, of course, Chairman Issa is entitled to his own opinion, but we cannot just ignore the legal opinions of more than 30 legal experts, including two former House counsels.

Ranking Member Cummings had a great idea, a sensible idea, and I can't quite understand why my friends on the other side haven't accepted it. He said let's hold a hearing with many of these legal experts and get to the bottom of why they feel Chairman Issa's actions are deficient. But Chairman Issa nixed that quickly and said no way, no hearings.

This is the Oversight Committee. This is the committee that is supposed to be nonpartisan, when you think about it. I mean, the investigations are supposed to have some credibility. But Chairman Issa nixed that. In fact, he is refusing to hold such a hearing.

And actually, it just baffles me. If Chairman Issa firmly believes that this contempt resolution has merit and has legal standing, then what is the harm in holding a hearing and considering these legal experts' opinions?

The truth is that Chairman Issa and the Republican leadership really do not care about doing this fairly, and they never have. This is an exercise in political theater, designed for the conservative media closed information loop.

Mr. Speaker, speaking truth to power is important. Investigating abuses of power is even more important. But abusing the process in the name of investigating abuse is wrong. We have been down this road before. We have seen this kind of witch-hunt steamroll through this very Capitol. But not even Joseph McCarthy was able to strip away an American citizen's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment, as Chairman Issa is trying to do.

The Congressional Research Service found that the last time Congress tried to hold witnesses in contempt after they asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify was in the 1950s and 1960s in Senator Joseph McCarthy's committee, the House un-American Activities Committee, and others. In nearly every case, the juries refused to convict or Federal courts overturned those convictions. This exercise that we are engaged in today is nearly identical to the actions of Senator McCarthy. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.

This is sad because it demeans this House of Representatives. It may be red meat for the extreme right wing, but for too many Americans, it adds to the cynicism that this is a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, the IRS is a powerful agency. The Tax Code, itself, can be either daunting or beneficial, depending on where you sit. The IRS and the Code can be used to help people, like through the EITC, the child tax credit, and the R&D tax credits; or it could be used punitively, as it was during the Nixon administration.

The IRS, under the Obama administration, must be held to a high standard. We must keep politics out of the way the IRS is run and the way it operates. In fact, the hearings, depositions, and investigations held to date actually show that there was no White House involvement in this case--none.

The problem here is that the narrative that my Republican friends have doesn't fit the facts and they are frustrated, so they want to kick the ball down to the court and have more committees, more investigations, more special counsels. Maybe they will find something. In addition, these hearings that were held, these depositions and investigations show that the targeting of nonprofit groups by the IRS was not limited to conservative groups.

Unfortunately, this whole process is so political that my friends, the Republicans on the Oversight Committee, intentionally limited the scope of what they are focused on to just conservative groups. It doesn't matter what happened to progressive groups. The truth is that both liberal and conservative groups were targeted. That is a fact that is conveniently left out of the arguments and accusations posed by my friends on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Republicans are trying to do here. It is crystal clear. They do not want to talk about the issues that matter to people. From the economy to the environment to immigration, they don't want to talk about those issues because a majority of the American people disagree with them. They don't want to talk about those issues because they have no ideas, nothing, nothing to offer. They don't even want to talk about ObamaCare anymore now that 8 million Americans have health coverage. They don't know what to do now, so they are coming up with these desperate attempts to try to create distractions. So this is what they are left with: sad little scraps of political nonsense that they keep trying to peddle as leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and resolution are colossal wastes of time. They do nothing. They do nothing at all to try to ensure that the IRS is above politics. They do nothing at all to try to achieve any kind of justice or truth.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to get on with the business of actually solving real problems that affect real Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I think he has kind of highlighted kind of the differences between the two parties here. He mentioned that we are trying to focus attention on gender inequalities and other issues. We are.

I think there is something wrong when women in this country make 77 cents on every dollar a man makes. I think that is outrageous. I think women ought to be paid the same as men to do the same job. So, yeah, that is an issue, and that is something we should talk about. And it is not just a women's issue, by the way; it is a family issue.

The Senate sent us over an immigration bill that would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next 20 years--$900 billion. They did it in a bipartisan way. We can't even get a vote here. We can't even get a vote here in the House of Representatives.

There are millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed and whose unemployment benefits have run out. We can't even get a vote to extend unemployment benefits for these people--maybe because they don't have a super-PAC, maybe because those aren't their natural constituencies. I don't know what the reason is. But those are important issues. And, quite frankly, yes, that is what the American people want us to be talking about--things that matter to them.

The problem with what we are doing here today, this is so blatantly politically motivated, even in terms of the scope of the investigation, that it just is laughable. It is laughable.

Listening to the debate in the Rules Committee last night amongst those on the Oversight Committee, the back and forth, and realizing how broken that committee is, how partisan that committee has become because of the leadership in this House, it is really sad.

No one here is defending the IRS. No one here is defending Lois Lerner. But what we don't want to do is trample on the Constitution, and we don't want to unnecessarily politicize these proceedings, which is what is happening right now.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I just remind the gentleman that 32 legal experts have said that my friends are wrong. I would like to yield to Mr. Connolly to clarify that.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just so everybody is clear here, we are not just talking about any attorney. We are talking about legal scholars. Quite frankly, the overwhelming opinion is that my friends are overreaching here, and, again, it makes a mockery of this House and especially at a time when we ought to be doing the people's work.

Millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed can't even get a vote on the House floor to extend unemployment benefits. These are the people we are supposed to represent. We are telling them, forget it, you are on your own. We have all these excuses why we can't bring that to the floor.

The minimum wage, we have people working full-time in this country who are stuck in poverty. My friends went after people on SNAP, the program that they like to target, a program that provides food to hungry people, and they say everybody ought to get a job. Well, the majority of able-bodied people on that program work, and they earn so little because wages are so low that they still are entitled to some benefit. If you work in this country, you ought not to be in poverty.

So, Mr. Speaker, on both this issue of unemployment and the minimum wage and on the issue of immigration, those are the things we ought to be debating here today. That is what the American people--that would be solving problems, not creating partisan political theater.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to defeat the previous question. If they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore unemployment insurance and provide much- needed relief to countless families across this country.

To discuss our proposal, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, wow, when we talk about tyranny, I should remind the gentleman that you have two bills coming to the floor under a closed rule--absolutely closed. Nobody can offer any amendments. It is your way or the highway. They are absolutely closed.

When you talk about tyranny, we can't get a vote on the House floor on unemployment compensation. We can't get a vote on minimum wage. We can't get a vote on pay equities. We can't get a vote on immigration reform.

I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. I mean, it is our side, those of us on this side that can't get our voices heard. Last session, you had one of the most closed Congresses in our history, after you promised a wide-open, transparent process. You have just shut everything down.

Even the scope of what this bill is focused on is closed in a very partisan way to focus only on abuses that deal with potential rightwing groups, conservative groups, but you totally cut out any abuse that might have happened to a liberal group or a progressive group, so I don't know what the gentleman is talking about.

This is a closed process. We talk about democracy and that we need to promote democracy around the world. We need a little democracy here in the House of Representatives. We don't have any.

Let me just say one other thing here, Mr. Speaker. We had 39 experts--39 witnesses that were interviewed by the committee, 39. Not one single one indicated there was any link between the White House and the IRS mess, not one.

I mean, if there had been a few, I guess we could have a debate here about whether we need to go further, but not one. So here is the problem: their narrative doesn't fit the facts, and they are upset about it.

I get it. You were hoping for some juicy conspiracy that doesn't exist, so you have to create more investigations, more investigations, all the while, we are neglecting our work, our duty to the people of this country.

Yes, let's make sure that the IRS is above politics. I am all with you on that. I don't want them tagging anybody for political reasons, and I am committed to that, and so is everybody on this side, but that is not what we are doing here.

This is witch-hunt week. Make no mistake about it because we are doing this today, and then we are doing Benghazi tomorrow. That is the theme of the week, and what a tragedy, what a tragedy when so much more needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), who is on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the comments of my friend, but I think the talk he just gave supports one of the points that we have been trying to make here, and that is we have 39 legal experts, former House counsels, who basically say that what my friends are doing here today are trampling on Ms. Lerner's constitutional rights.

It would seem to me that, if you wanted this whole circus to be a little bit more legitimate, that you would have agreed to what Chairman Cummings had asked for, which was a hearing to bring in legal experts to actually talk about the merits of this before kind of rushing to the floor with this purely partisan bill.

The second thing I would say to my friend from Tennessee is, when you talk about the number of liberal groups targeted, one of the reasons why we are not talking about liberal groups being targeted here is because the majority kind of stacked the deck.

They formed the rules. They only want to focus on conservative groups, so that is why there is even more evidence of the fact that this is a purely partisan exercise.

I just want to say, so my colleagues are clear, not one witness--not one single witness interviewed by the committee identified any evidence that political bias motivated the use of the inappropriate selection criteria.

The inspector general, Russell George, was asked at a May 17, 2013, hearing before the Ways and Means Committee, ``Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications?''

In response, the inspector general testified, ``We did not, sir.''

Oversight Committee staff asked all 39 witnesses whether they were aware of any political bias in the creation or use of inappropriate criteria. Not one identified even a single instance of political motivation or bias.

Look, there needs to be reforms to the IRS. We need to make sure that the IRS is above politics, but bringing this political circus, this witch-hunt, to the floor purely because it polls well amongst your base is ludicrous.

It is ludicrous because we should be focused on extending unemployment benefits for people who have lost their unemployment compensation. We should be raising the minimum wage. We should be passing immigration reform.

We should be dealing with the pay equity bill, so that women get paid the same amount as men do for working the same job.

It is also a family issue. We ought to be focused on getting this economy going; but instead, because my friends on the other side of the aisle don't have a clue on what to do, they are asking to look over here, let's do a distraction, let's do a diversion. I think this is outrageous.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this because facts are important, Inspector General J. Russell George testified before the Oversight Committee that his audit did not look at the IRS be-on-the- lookout list with regard to progressive groups. That is what the inspector general testified, so let's stop this partisanship.

I would say to my colleagues, if my friends want to do this correctly, if they want to do this in a way that has some credibility, they ought to do this in a nonpartisan way.

It is really quite shameful that the Oversight Committee has become so polarized and so politicized and that this whole issue is being brought before us in this way that really, quite frankly, I think is beneath this House.

We ought to do a proper oversight, but not purely because it polls well or do it in a way that plays well with a political base. We ought to do it in the right way.

The IRS should not be involved with politics, period. Whether it is going after conservative groups or liberal groups, that is absolutely unacceptable, and we ought to make sure that doesn't happen, but that is not what we are doing here.

What we are doing here is a witch-hunt. This is the first witch-hunt bill of the week. We have several that we are going to be doing this week, and I think our time could be better spent on helping the American people get back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats found out that there was extensive scrutiny of liberal progressive groups, groups that had names ``Progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and ``Acorn'' in their name. That is the Ways and Means Committee. That just goes to show how partisan this process has become, how politicized it has become. This is beneath this House.

If you do oversight, it ought to be nonpartisan. This has turned into a circus. This has turned into a witch-hunt. Enough of this. Let's start doing the people's work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Florida whether he has any additional speakers or whether the chairman will want to say any more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a circus, and it is really sad that we are here on the floor debating this.

Just for the record, witnesses testified that progressive groups got a multitiered review and that liberal groups like Emerge went through a 2-year process before getting denied.

The other thing you ought to know is that the IRS has begun a path to reform. It has implemented all the inspector general's recommendations, including going above and beyond by eliminating BOLOs altogether.

Mr. Speaker, if this were done in a fair and professional manner, we wouldn't be having this controversy today, but the exact opposite happened in the Committee on Oversight. It was a joke. We all saw it on TV. Enough of this. Enough of this. Let's start doing the people's work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I will offer into the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

This is on extending unemployment compensation benefits. It might be nice to do something that might help somebody around here, that might help the American people, instead of doing this witch-hunt, this week of investigations, this week of distraction, when our economy needs our attention, when people need jobs, when people's unemployment needs to be extended.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, which is a closed rule, two closed rules. Again, when we do oversight, it ought to be nonpartisan. This has become a partisan joke.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 565) calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 565.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service admitted to inappropriately targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in connection with their applications for tax-exempt status.

President Obama denounced this behavior as ``outrageous'' and ``unacceptable'' and stated that the IRS ``as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're applying the laws in a nonpartisan way.'' He pledged that the administration would ``find out exactly what happened'' and would make sure wrongdoers were ``held fully accountable.''

In testimony before my committee on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder testified that the Department of Justice would conduct a ``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS's admitted targeting of conservative groups. The Attorney General promised me and the members of the Judiciary Committee that ``this will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions, and anyone who has broken the law will be held accountable.''

Unfortunately, that appears to be where the administration's commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. We have all seen the testimony

from conservative groups stating that they had yet to be interviewed by the Department of Justice investigators more than a year after the allegations came to light. Additionally, the administration has sought to undermine whatever investigation the DOJ was conducting at every opportunity.

Earlier this year, unnamed Department of Justice officials leaked information to The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the Department does not plan to file criminal charges over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups. When asked who leaked this information to the media and if the Department plans to prosecute the leaker once identified, Attorney General Holder admitted that he has not looked into this leak.

Additionally, on Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama stated that there was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' in connection with the IRS targeting.

Finally, as we all know, the Department of Justice appointed Barbara Bosserman, an attorney in the notoriously politicized Civil Rights Division, to head the investigation. Ms. Bosserman has donated more than $6,000 to President Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

The relevant regulations require the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel when he determines three circumstances exist:

First, that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted;

Second, that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances;

And third, that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

It should be noted that these regulations require the Attorney General to exercise subjective discretion. However, there should be little doubt to any neutral observer that the requirements for appointing a special counsel have been satisfied.

First, as shown in the Ways and Means Committee's referral letter to the Department of Justice, there are serious allegations that IRS officials, including former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, violated Federal law by targeting conservative groups and by releasing tax confidential tax information to the media. We also know that troubling information continues to come to light about this matter, including that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political activity that is legal under Federal law.

Second, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists between DOJ investigators and this administration. As a legal matter, determining whether a conflict of interest exists requires a determination of whether external interests--one's own or those of other clients or third persons--are likely to impact the exercise of independent professional judgment. In addition to Ms. Bosserman's clear conflict of interest, this administration's statements and actions have repeatedly served to undermine the Department of Justice investigation and have created an indisputable conflict of interest.

Third, it is equally clear that appointing an outside special counsel to investigate this matter would be in the public interest. The American people are very concerned that their government has targeted individual American citizens for harassment solely on the basis of their political beliefs.

The American people deserve to know who ordered the targeting, when the targeting was ordered, and why. For many Americans, the IRS is the primary way they interact with the Federal Government. To now have the IRS acting as a politicized organization that persecutes citizens for their political beliefs shakes the core of American democracy. Under the circumstances, this administration cannot credibly investigate this matter. It is time for the Attorney General to appoint an independent, professional special counsel to get to the bottom of this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Michigan, who said that this hallowed institution should not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, I totally agree with the gentleman's assertion. I also believe that he would agree with me that the Internal Revenue Service should not be turned into a political arm of any administration.

The IRS--the tax collectors--have the most unenviable job. And they are despised by most Americans coming to collect their taxes from them. To politicize that organization, to turn it into an organization that the American people mistrust, is an abuse.

The contention that the IRS targeted progressives is debunked by this staff report prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dated April 7, 2014, just 1 month ago.

I will read from the conclusion of that report:

Evidence available to the committee contradicts Democrats'

claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO

list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea

Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of

their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS

data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal

applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative

applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS

indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative

applications: ``progressive'' applications are not considered

``Tea Parties.'' These facts show one unyielding truth: Tea

Party groups were targeted because of their political

beliefs, liberal groups were not.

And from the executive summary:

For months, the administration and congressional Democrats

have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the

administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively

acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted

question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference.

When that strategy failed, the administration shifted to

blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the

targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional

Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of

the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan

targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact

that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed

conservative tax-exempt applicants.

The gentleman from Michigan is right: this institution should not be used, nor the IRS, to benefit either political party. And that is why an independent, professional special counsel should be appointed immediately by the Attorney General. Because the three tests for that appointment have already been met.

That is the reason why we are here today. A criminal investigation of a person or a matter is warranted. An investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorneys' Office or litigating division of the Department of Justice would prevent a conflict of interest for the department.

All of these false assertions made over and over and over again show there is a conflict in this investigation by this administration.

Third, under those circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

It is time for that outside special counsel to be appointed, to take the politics out of this, and to make sure that the American people's interest in having an Internal Revenue Service--the tax collectors of the country--not attempting to influence public policy, not taking ideological points of view in the enforcement of our tax law is not to take place.

The only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel appointed.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert an executive summary into the Record.

Executive Summary

In the immediate aftermath of Lois Lerner's public apology

for the targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants,

President Obama and congressional Democrats quickly denounced

the IRS misconduct. But later, some of the same voices that

initially decried the targeting changed their tune. Less than

a month after the wrongdoing was exposed, prominent Democrats

declared the ``case is solved'' and, later, the whole

incident to be a ``phony scandal.'' As recently as February

2014, the President explained away the targeting as the

result of ``bone-headed'' decisions by employees of an IRS

``local office'' without ``even a smidgeon of corruption.''

To support this false narrative, the Administration and

congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the

IRS's targeting was not just limited to conservative

applicants. Time and again, they have claimed that the IRS

targeted liberal- and progressive-oriented groups as well--

and that, therefore, there was no political animus to the

IRS's actions. These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and

have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet,

the Administration's chief defenders continue to make these

assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from

the truth about the IRS's targeting of tax-exempt applicants.

The Committee's investigation demonstrates that the IRS

engaged in disparate treatment of conservative-oriented tax-

exempt applicants. Documents produced to the Committee show

that initial applications transferred from Cincinnati to

Washington were filed by Tea Party groups. Other documents

and testimony show that the initial criteria used to identify

and hold Tea Party applications captured conservative

organizations. After the criteria were broadened in July 2012

to be cosmetically neutral, material provided to the

Committee indicates that the IRS still intended to target

only conservative applications.

A central plank in the Democratic argument is the claim

that liberal-leaning groups were identified on versions of

the IRS's ``Be on the Look Out'' (BOLO) lists. This claim

ignores significant differences in the placement of the

conservative and liberal entries on the BOLO lists and how

the IRS used the BOLO lists in practice. The Democratic

claims are further undercut by testimony from IRS employees

who told the Committee that liberal groups were not subject

to the same systematic scrutiny and delay as conservative

organizations.

The IRS's independent watchdog, the Treasury Inspector

General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), confirms that the IRS

treated conservative applicants differently from liberal

groups. The inspector general, J. Russell George, wrote that

while TIGTA found indications that the IRS had improperly

identified Tea Party groups, it ``did not find evidence that

the criteria [Democrats] identified, labeled `Progressives,'

were used by the IRS to select potential political cases

during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited.'' He concluded

that TIGTA ``found no indication in any of these other

materials that `Progressives' was a term used to refer cases

for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.''

An analysis performed by the House Committee on Ways and

Means buttresses the Committee's findings of disparate

treatment. The Ways and Means Committee's review of the

confidential tax-exempt applications proves that the IRS

systematically targeted conservative organizations. Although

a small number of progressive and liberal groups were caught

up in the application backlog, the Ways and Means Committee's

review shows that the backlog was 83 percent conservative and

only 10 percent were liberal-oriented. Moreover, the IRS

approved 70

percent of the liberal-leaning groups and only 45 percent of

the conservative groups. The IRS approved every group with

the word ``progressive'' in its name.

In addition, other publicly available information supports

the analysis of the Ways and Means Committee. In September

2013, USA Today published an independent analysis of a list

of about 160 applications in the IRS backlog. This analysis

showed that 80 percent of the applications in the backlog

were filed by conservative groups while less than seven

percent were filed by liberal groups. A separate assessment

from USA Today in May 2013 showed that for 27 months

beginning in February 2010, the IRS did not approve a single

tax-exempt application filed by a Tea Party group. During

that same period, the IRS approved ``perhaps dozens of

applications from similar liberal and progressive groups.''

The IRS, over many years, has undoubtedly scrutinized

organizations that embrace different political views for

varying reasons--in many cases, a just and neutral criteria

may have been fairly utilized. This includes the time period

when Tea Party organizations were systematically screened for

enhanced and inappropriate scrutiny. But the concept of

targeting, when defined as a systematic effort to select

applicants for scrutiny simply because their applications

reflected the organizations' political views, only applied to

Tea Party and similar conservative organizations. While use

of term ``targeting'' in the IRS scandal may not always

follow this definition, the reality remains that there is

simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group

received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected

the organization's political views.

For months, the Administration and congressional Democrats

have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the

Administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively

acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted

question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference.

When that strategy failed, the Administration shifted to

blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the

targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional

Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of

the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan

targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact

that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed

conservative tax-exempt applicants.

Conclusion

Democrats in Congress and the Administration have

perpetrated a myth that the IRS targeted both conservative

and liberal tax-exempt applicants. The targeting is a ``phony

scandal,'' they say, because the IRS did not just target Tea

Party groups, but it targeted liberal and progressive groups

as well. Month after month, in public hearings and televised

interviews, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that

progressive groups were scrutinized in the same manner as

conservative groups. Because of this bipartisan targeting,

they conclude, there is not a ``smidgeon of corruption'' at

the IRS.

The problem with these assertions is that they are simply

not accurate. The Committee's investigation shows that the

IRS sought to identify and single out Tea Party applications.

The facts bear this out. The initial ``test'' applications

were filed by Tea Party groups. The initial screening

criteria identified only Tea Party applications. The revised

criteria still intended to identify Tea Party activities. The

IRS's internal review revealed that a substantial majority of

applications were conservative. In short, the IRS treated

conservative tax-exempt applications in a manner distinct

from other applications, including those filed by liberal

groups.

Evidence available to the Committee contradicts Democrats'

claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO

list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea

Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of

their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS

data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal

applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative

applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS

indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative

applications: `` `progressive' applications are not

considered ``Tea Parties.' '' These facts show one unyielding

truth: Tea Party groups were targeted because of their

political beliefs, liberal groups were not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, H. Res. 568.

House Resolution 568 provides for consideration of two important resolutions. Both resolutions are critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS' targeting of conservative nonprofit groups, and they are critical to holding this government accountable.

The groups who are discriminated against deserve to know the full truth and so do the American people. To this day, Mr. Speaker, no one has been held accountable for the actions of the IRS.

I wish that the underlying resolutions weren't necessary; but, once again, the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history'' hasn't been helping much in providing the answers to the American people that they so rightly deserve.

For example, one of the underlying resolutions, H. Res. 565, calls for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting that took place.

Again, it is frustrating that this House even needs to take this step, Mr. Speaker; but as we have come to find out, the Justice Department chose a Democratic political supporter to lead their investigation into the IRS' actions. This attorney donated over $6,000 to President Obama's election campaigns, and if that is not a conflict of interest, I don't know what it is.

That is extremely disappointing to me because this administration had the opportunity to give Americans assurances that they wouldn't stand for the IRS' conduct, they wouldn't allow an agency to be a tool to punish people for their political beliefs and would work diligently to root out this behavior and hold the appropriate people accountable.

Instead, the administration severely undermined the credibility of the investigation at every turn. We need impartiality and objectiveness from this administration; and, Mr. Speaker, we just didn't get it.

We have hit a wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time we had a special counsel to look into the issue so we can fully understand the depths of the targeting.

What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that all signs point to Lois Lerner as a central figure in this scandal. Ms. Lerner has been unwilling to answer questions before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, despite giving testimony to two other bodies.

Her actions to this point beg the question: What is she trying to hide?

Ms. Lerner has roughly a year--she has had a year to work with the committee and ample time to comply with this subpoena. Unfortunately, she has refused to do so.

When called to testify before the committee, Lois Lerner simultaneously asserted her innocence, while depriving the American people of the opportunity to get their questions answered.

Ms. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her Fifth Amendment right--17, Mr. Speaker.

In the words of my colleague from South Carolina, that is a lot of talking for someone who wants to remain silent.

Some people believe--me being one of them--that you can't do that. You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mrs. Lerner's conduct shows contempt for this body. I certainly do. I truly believe that. But that is what we are here today for, to have a debate, to see what the majority of this body believes.

This rule allows for the debate to happen and a vote to happen. It allows Congress to do its job, providing oversight of the executive branch.

If the contempt vote passes, it will place the issue into Federal court. It will be up to them to decide if we are accurate or off base. Let the court decide that. That is the appropriate step, because that is where the dispute between these two branches is supposed to reside. The judicial branch is the arbitrator between the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to issues like this. That is how a three-branch system works. We should let the process take place.

I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that those on the other side of the aisle would say this is trivial. This impacted American citizens. And I won't disagree that it may have impacted those on the left; but, to a greater extent, it impacted those on the right. And to Americans, one of the most powerful organizations there is in America is the IRS. They can instill fear into your heart when you get that letter. So when you have one that does something that is so outrageous as what they have done, it is not trivial, at least not to the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, it is just interesting to hear the argument on the other side. I have spent 37, 38 years protecting people's rights. That is what I did. As a sheriff, we did things and lived within the law. We answered questions truthfully. That is all we are asking.

This is terrible that we have to get to this point, but at the end of the day, we are not taking her rights away. We are going to the court and asking the court, Are we right in our assumption in regards to what the House counsel had told us? Are we right? If we are not, they are going to tell us we are not.

So, she has due process. This whole thing about we are taking her due process away is just ludicrous. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. That is what they say on commercials when somebody wants to give some legal advice: I am not an attorney.

What I will tell you from my past experience is that I can get attorneys' opinions on either side of an issue. That is what they get paid to do. Whether they are paid or unpaid, they all have an opinion. It doesn't mean their opinion is the right opinion. It just means that they have an opinion.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I do have to go back to the comments that my good friend from Massachusetts mentioned. Now, I wasn't here in 2008, but if you look back at the history, the Democrats controlled this body and the Rules Committee in 2008.

When Congress considered a contempt resolution in 2008, the rules opted to hereby the resolution, preventing Members from even debating it or holding a vote on the measure on the floor. They just said: here we are, we are bringing it to the floor for debate and a vote.

It is pretty open to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I love the comments about McCarthyism as it relates to this particular issue, but really, McCarthyism is the IRS. The IRS is targeting American citizens who have done nothing wrong, who merely wanted to express their freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is all they wanted to do.

We hear that there is a bunch of liberal groups that were caught up. I don't believe so. The record will reflect that there was less than half a dozen, while there were conservative groups of over 200 that were targeted. I think that is pretty compelling, and those are the facts. It is not just my thought. It is the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I do not have any additional speakers, but go right ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

We have heard a lot today. It should concern the American people of what we have heard in regards to the allegations and the operations within the IRS.

You know, I regret, I really do regret that somehow this turned into a partisan shouting match. Both sides--both sides--are involved in this. I regret it because we have lost sight of the real issue: The IRS constituted a serious violation of public trust.

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to when I was sheriff, and I would sit there and have parents come in and complain about schoolteachers and the police officers that arrested their son or daughter for a violation of law, and they were more concerned about what were perceived as issues--in regards to how they were handled--versus the actual conduct of their child. This is the same thing.

We are blowing smoke all over the place trying to obscure the fact that the IRS--under the direction, we believe, of Lois Lerner, the involvement of her--violated Americans' rights across the board. Talk about McCarthyism. They have done it. They have the power to do it. They have the power to come in. If you remember the questions asked, they asked people about what they believed and what were their conversations, who they talked with. Was it an invasion of privacy? I think so.

The American people--and you have heard this from other speakers today--really need to have their faith restored that this government operates in a very open way, that people can trust government again.

No one should have to worry. No one--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or otherwise--should ever have to worry about their political speech having them singled out by the IRS. No one should have to worry about that. No one group should have to worry about the government worrying about their speech and having the ability to counter it in a way that brings officialness to it. How do you do that?

This is true, though, whether you are Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, or anything else. The point is we should be alarmed. This is what we are talking about today. We should be alarmed about the conduct of the IRS under the direction of Lois Lerner. We should be worried about that in the future, because that is the biggest single threat to America today is how our own government treats its people, Mr. Speaker. A Federal Government agency used its weight to bully Americans. That is not what America is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Make no mistake, though, that is exactly what happened. The IRS bullied people. We had someone last night testify about constituents in their district that wanted to promote an organization and do something, and they were bullied by the IRS until they finally said: You know what, I give up. I can't take it. I worry about what is going to happen because I know the IRS has the ability to do other things on my personal tax return and call it into question.

This is an extreme disservice to the American public. They really do deserve better. If we are ever going to right this wrong, we have got to find out what happened. We have to understand all the facts. And so my friends across the aisle really don't want to hear the facts. They talk about everything else under the Sun, but they really don't want to talk about what happened.

You know, my good friend talked about this being trivial, doubling down on crazy. Well, I guess that you are talking about my constituents, because my constituents have that concern. They do have the concern because of what they have seen and what has been reported in the media by both the left and right media in regards to the overstepping of Federal investigation--the IRS--on groups.

I heard this called a circus. Well, that is what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to get away from this partisanship, and let's do what we are supposed to do. By appointing a special counsel, we are hoping to take politics out of it, because politics are on both sides of this issue. So to do that, you would appoint someone, a special counsel, to investigate. Let's take away the partisanship.

It is also important that people are held accountable for their actions. Ms. Lerner defied a lawfully issued subpoena, and there ought to be repercussions for that; otherwise, this is just for show. We really have no oversight ability if people just come and say: Oh, I am not going to tell you.

That is not how it works. That is not how it is supposed to work.

This rule brings this question to the floor, not like the Democrats did in 2008. This rule brings everybody to the floor where they can have an open debate and question and vote on what they think is right.

So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. We have the ability to get answers, because whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, the American people need to know that their government is going to be held accountable if they overreach. If they trample on my rights as a citizen, we should have the ability to know who is doing it and why, and there should be some redress.

Today it is really about we don't care. That is what we are hearing. There are all kinds of other issues, but we don't care about this. It doesn't matter that we sent numerous bills over to the Senate--we talk about job creation--that were passed bipartisanly here. The Senate has refused to take any action on that, has refused to bring it up, discuss it, debate it, amend it, and send it back. They have done nothing.

So we have the ability today to get politics out of it. Let a D.C. court make a decision. Let's do the right thing.

I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is one of those issues that really gets you angry. Both sides believe that people should play by the rules, and what you have are people not playing by the rules. People in my district, people in Ms. DeLauro's district and people in Mr. Crenshaw's district have to pay their taxes and pay their taxes where they live. They don't have the option of doing these kinds of things. For me, it is not only a legislative issue but a personal issue--the fact that these folks continue to get away with this kind of a situation.

This is an issue that Ms. DeLauro has been working on for years. It is one that she deserves a lot of credit for, and that is why we have to thank her for it.

I would like to take this opportunity to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman is seeking to bring the salaries and expense of the courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services up to an appropriate level in part, as he mentioned, to address a tragic incident that took place in his district.

It highlights the problems the judiciary suffered while under sequestration and with the lower funding levels that agencies in the executive branch have also had to face.

We will work with the gentleman, the majority, and with the judiciary, as we do every year, to ensure that we can meet their funding needs and address the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this has very little to do with a bowling alley. This is not even about the picture of Richard Nixon fully dressed, bowling at the White House. This is about this desire of Republicans and the Tea Party segment of Republicans, in some cases, to make Barack Obama seem like an illegitimate President.

The legitimacy of his Presidency has been questioned on and on. There were questions about his birthplace. There were questions about what he said his religion was. There were questions about whether he was old enough to be President. There have been questions about everything. So now, these petty attacks continue.

This is a nonissue. This is a nonstarter. First of all, this was about fixing up a bowling alley that has been there forever. I don't think the American public, with all due respect to the people in the gentleman's district, really spend a lot of time concerned about the fact that all Presidents--and I mean all Presidents--are not allowed just to pick up and go to a local place to have a beer or bowl a game of bowling or whatever. So this is not an issue that we should be dealing with.

But what is important about it is that GSA, furthermore, has canceled the project. The Federal contractor posting was pulled on July 9. So I am sure that the other side knows that this no longer is an issue, but it continues to be something that sounds good. I am sure people will be writing about it tonight, that the bowling alley was going to be built at the White House. No. This was an existing one that was going to be refurbished. That contract has been pulled back. That idea has been pulled back.

There just continues to be more and more and more of this petty attack on a President. And I think it is not so

much that he was elected President, which caused a lot of pain for a lot of people, but the fact that he was reelected. That really has turned a lot of people to a point where they will come up with anything.

So by tonight, we may see even the plumbing at the White House attacked, as we did a couple of years ago. And at that time, I remarked that there hadn't been any plumbers at the White House since the Nixon administration, and that was the truth. We have leaks. We have a White House that needs fixing, and this Congress wastes time on these kinds of issues.

So I would just hope that the gentleman would pull his amendment. If he doesn't, then I would hope we could defeat the amendment because it is just silly and not necessary at all.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, it is silly. And I am not suggesting the gentleman is silly.

We spend money, large amounts of money on the military and on other things that we never, ever, ever attack. We send money overseas in misguided military situations, and we don't complain about that. But it makes good headlines to say that today we stopped the bowling alley from being built at the White House. ``Refurbished'' was the question at hand, and it has been pulled back since July 9. There is no plan whatsoever to do anything with the existing old, decrepit bowling alley at the White House.

So this is not a gutter ball. This is not a strike for anyone. This is just more of their silliness that we will see for the next 24 hours.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of other speakers, so I will be very brief.

This really has very little to do with the substance that we are talking about, or that appears to be marijuana. It is about the fact that, whether we like it or not, there are States that have already legalized either recreational use, in two cases, or medical use in 22 States, and those situations require banking decisions and banking abilities. Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, said at our hearing:

Without any guidance there will be a proliferation of cash-

only businesses, and that would make it impossible to see

when there are actions going on that violate both Federal and

State law.

So an attack on the use of marijuana may be misleading here because what we are doing is really ignoring the banking aspect of this and the fact that there have to be some regulations and some issues put in place to do the right thing and to uphold the law, the banking laws and other laws.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chairman, I get tired of saying this, but it has to be said. I realize that the other side's desire is to bring the IRS down to nothing. It is a constitutional question. We have the power to collect taxes. One would argue that we must have a department that collects taxes.

They may not always be the department--the agency--we want them to be. Both sides, whether one believes it or not, were outraged that something wrong might have been done, but to suggest and paint with a broad brush the whole IRS and say that everyone there at the senior level is not worthy of a bonus or not worthy of our respect is really to do a disservice to public service employees. These folks do a job. They do a job on a daily basis.

Are there problems with the IRS? There have always been problems at the IRS. Has the IRS been an agency that is loved by the American public? No, because we as Americans would love somehow to do everything we need to do, but have taxes that are either very low or nonexistent.

That is not a knock on us. We would all rather pay less taxes than we pay, but we continuously just spend time knocking and knocking. If you measure the time that we have spent on this bill so far and you measure how much of that time has been allocated to the IRS and to bringing it down, not to helping it in any way, not to coming up with any solutions--the whole argument has been they did something wrong, we are going to punish them.

We are not talking about children. We are not talking about a foreign government that attacked us. We are talking about an agency that might not have done everything the way we want them to do it, and therefore, we have to use our resources, our power, and our legislative ability to make them do a better job, to help them along the way, not to destroy them.

So here we are saying if you have executives at the higher level that are doing a good job, you can't help them in any way. You have to ignore that.

Now, we talk about morale. We talk about morale with our staff. We talk about morale with our Membership. Why do we have so many Members who are retiring?

If you asked them, a lot of them are retiring because we don't get along the way we used to or maybe because we spend so much time on wasteful issues.

So we can't paint with a brush the whole IRS. We have to find a way to help, to make them a better agency--yes, to use tough love.

Absolutely, I will be the first one to agree to that and to join the majority in doing that, but this whole word of punishing of a worthless institution, of a corrupt institution, of an institution that does not follow the law, that is not true, that is not fair, and that is not correct.

That is why this amendment is misguided, and it may do just the opposite, like so many of these amendments. By punishing, you bring down morale, and you bring down the support of those who could help us do a better job at the IRS like we all would like.

I hoped that we would get Mr. Gosar to withdraw his amendment, but his facial expression tells me that I am crazy in asking that question. You don't have to agree that I am crazy in asking that question, but I think we should defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is primarily concerned with records management at the IRS, which does not surprise us--the IRS again. However, this bill already contains a provision preventing the use of funds by the IRS to violate these very same sections of the code. In other words, the bill that we are debating today, the full bill, already accomplishes what the gentleman seeks to do. Every agency is already required to follow Federal records management law, so this amendment seems particularly unnecessary.

I realize Members on the other side want to continue to issue press releases stating how tough they are on the IRS, but there is no need to restate current law. I think that this one is different in the sense that while other amendments that I may not approve of or support speak to an issue that hasn't been spoken to before or repeat something we have dealt with before, this one speaks to an issue that Mr. Crenshaw already took care of in the bill.

That is my opposition to it, and that is why I think the amendment is unnecessary.

I yield back the balance of my time.